Monists: Melissus and Anaximander - Coursework Example

Monists Introduction Monism has its supporters and its detractors since there are several variations and types of monism that are given in philosophy. However, the basic elements of monism suggest that whatever can be observed in the world is basically a part of the same thing. Overtime, philosophers have given various their views which have created different flavors of monism where everything is made out of one substance or the approach to monism where it has been suggested that real things are unified and homogenous. In these terms, it is possible to view Melissus as a monist and to better understand his approach to monism; it can be compared to the ideas regarding monism given by Anaximander and other modern and ancient philosophers. Amongst the variations involved in monism, the commonality comes from the idea of oneness while the differences come from what the philosophers see as being ‘one’ and what they count as being ‘one’ with other matter around it. This separates monism into two broad categories i.e. existence monism that looks at objects in the world and sees one object as simply a form of an existing token of the same object, and priority monism where only one concrete object is present and that object takes priority over all others. Melissus Clearly it is difficult to distinguish the two simply by looking at them individually and it becomes important to understand what the philosophers connected with the idea of monism were saying before a discussion can be had about their differences. In this context, Melissus can be seen as a monist if the ideas concerning existence monism are applied to the idea. Existence monism has been supported by Parmenides and Melissus from the same school but the case of Melissus is complicated by the fact that his ideas were slightly different from the ones presented by Parmenides even though he was continually defending the approach taken by Parmenides (Curd, 1998). As opposed to early pre-Socratic philosophers, later pre-Socratic were largely of the opinion that the change which can be observed by us are only physical in nature and they do not change the object in any real terms. However, Melissus goes beyond Parmenides when it comes to considering changes since he suggests that the idea of pluralism is anathema to a calculation of the correct amount of matter around us Curd (1998). Our senses can not see all that is around us and pluralistic theories would fail in such a context. According to Curd (1998), Melissus presents a theory of monism that is halfway between numerical and predictational monistic thought. His criticism of Atomists who accepted voids is interesting because it generated a strong response from them to his own monistic ideas. Curd (1998) writes that: “Atomism developed as a response to a cluster of Eleatic problems, including Parmenides account of the nature of what-is, Zenos arguments about division, and Melissuss concerns to deny the empty and to challenge Pluralist theories of mixture. There is a sense in which it is not surprising that the Atomists should give such an answer to Melissuss argument (Curd, 1998, pg. 215)”. However, and as suggested by Curd (1998) as well as Sedley (1999) he does remain an existence monist since he does confirm the idea that there is only one concrete object in the world. Even though this object may be complex and may change from one form of matter to another, the processes of this conversion may often be reversed and thus the object can return to its original form. In fact, this object takes the form of all that is around us and does not lose any of its complexity even when it has changed from one shape to another. Melissus becomes an existence monist since he continues the ideas presented by Parmenides with the notion that being is infinite without an origin or an end to itself. The origin can not be defined since the being could not have started from nothing and the end can not be defined since objects that are present in our world can only be turned into other objects and that process does not cause their destruction. In a modern context, the idea of conservation of matter is certainly applicable with regard to Melissus but he also suggests that there is an absolute being which includes everything that is there in the universe. Anaximander This being has no given limits in size and position therefore it is immune to changes from sources which are within this being. In a manner of speaking, this being can also be considered the reality that we experience without any qualitative variations for different individuals. Melissus further suggested that the being is a continuum where there is no break or gap since such a gap would suggest the presence of a void where there is nothing and the presence of nothing would divide the unity of the being into two or more parts. In this manner his monism is the same as Parmenides but different from the ideas presented by Anaximander (Bächli and Petrus, 2003). However, considering their similarities, they both understood that there is the idea of an origin as something which becomes the foundation of all objects around us. Apeiron is a concept used by Anaximander to suggest that the universal object has no limits placed on itself and it is an object in perpetuity which can transform parts of itself to all other objects that can be experienced by us. Thus this object is an element which makes everything else exist and without this object there would be nothing at all. Pre-Socratic philosophers were often searching for the one element that they thought to be present in all other elements and therefore the basis of all things observed. Some considered air to be this element while others suggested fire but Anaximander took this element to be the idea of Apeiron which is an unlimited unbounded form of matter that is not affected by time or the ravages of other elements and that it can give us new substances from which things can be created by nature or by the hand of man. By doing so, Anaximander makes a break from his teacher i.e. Thales who suggested that water formed the basis of all matter and this break makes Anaximander a monist. He does not take any element which is the part of the super substance to the super substance itself. For example, he shows that the property of water can only make water which is wet and water can never be dry. In the same manner, other basic elements of the ancient world also have certain extreme properties that can not allow them to take other forms therefore his argument came to a point where a super substance would be needed that could form the root of all other elements that we can observe. This substance is unique in the way that it is not perceptible to us but since it can produce other elements and objects in infinite variety, it becomes the monist substance that later philosophers had taken to be the super substance that creates everything else. This is also the element to which everything returns to once it has ceased to be in the sense that it is destroyed or turns dead. All the things which ‘die’ actually return to the element from which they have come from. Thus within the same super object, things can die and go from being to not being but that is simply a transition from being a part of the super element to being away from it and then to return to the same. This notion forms a part of the basis of a lot of the later philosophy and metaphysics since coming from one source and going back to the same is a fixture in many schools of thought. Even Islamic philosophy suggests that human beings come from one god and they shall return to him once they are dead. In ancient philosophy, Aristotle suggested the same idea of a unitary source for certain objects and Euripides also opined that things that come from earth will eventually be returned to the earth. The Judeo-Christian belief of dust to dust and ash to ash is undoubtedly linked with the same ideals that have been put forward by Parmenides, Anaximander and Melissus. Conclusion In conclusion, it is easy to see both Melissus as well as Anaximander as monists in their own right but there are subtle differences between the two as there are differences between the approaches taken to the idea of monism. In my own opinion, between the two, the approach taken by Anaximander is closer to a logical notion since Melissus denies the presence of a void. However, I also accept that there is some bias in my ideas since the beliefs of Anaximander hit close to home once they are taken in the modern context that is given to us by Judeo-Christian belief systems. Word Count: 1,539 Works Cited Bächli, A. and Petrus, K, 2003, Monism, Fouque Publishing. Curd, P, 1998, The Legacy of Parmenides, Princeton University Press. Sedley, D, 1999. The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. Read More