Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Anaxagoras on matter, motion, and multiple worlds.John E. Sisko - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):443-454.
    In this article, both Anaxagoras' theory of multiple worlds and the principles of his theory of matter are examined. It is argued that the five principles, which are set out explicitly in the extant fragments, (No Becoming, Indefinite Types, Universal Mixture, Predominance, and Infinite Divisibility) form a consistent set. Further, it is argued that the principle of Homoeomereity, which Anaxagoras attributes to Anaxagoras, is consistent with Anaxagoras' other principles and is likely to be a genuine principle of Anaxagoras' physics.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A lost fragment of Empedocles.John Pepple - 1996 - Journal of Value Inquiry 30 (1-2):169-186.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Anaxagoras on Matter, Motion, and Multiple Worlds. [REVIEW]John E. Sisko - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (6):443-454.
    In this article, both Anaxagoras’ theory of multiple worlds and the principles of his theory of matter are examined. It is argued that the five principles, which are set out explicitly in the extant fragments, (No Becoming, Indefinite Types, Universal Mixture, Predominance, and Infinite Divisibility) form a consistent set. Further, it is argued that the principle of Homoeomereity, which Anaxagoras attributes to Anaxagoras, is consistent with Anaxagoras’ other principles and is likely to be a genuine principle of Anaxagoras’ physics.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Anaxagoras, the Thoroughgoing Infinitist: The Relation between his Teachings on Multitude and on Heterogeneity.Miloš Arsenijević, Saša Popović & Miloš Vuletić - 2019 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 15 (1):35-70.
    In the analysis of Anaxagoras’ physics in view of the relation between his teachings on multitude and heterogeneity, two central questions emerge: 1) How can the structure of the universe considered purely mereo-topologically help us explain that at the first cosmic stage no qualitative difference is manifest in spite of the fact that the entire qualitative heterogeneity is supposedly already present there? 2) How can heterogeneity become manifest at the second stage, resulting from the noûs intervention, if according to fragment (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•