The Philosophy of Anaxagoras by Felix M. Cleve

Abstract

382 BOOK REVIEWS repudiated the " higher critical " method because it proposed a substitute for faith and because it ignored the different modes of historical existence. In his concluding chapter, Thomte seeks to justify the absence of an independent estimate of the great Danish thinker with the remark that no one who truly appreciates Kierkegaard's labors "could desire to furnish a critical estimate of his philosophy, for he finds himself standing under judgment" (p. £04). This sentiment is of a piece with an attempt to rest faith exclusively upon the ineffable experience of the believing individual (p. £17) . In both cases, the dialectical element in Kierkegaard is played down to the point of surrendering critical conscience and objective truth. No principles for evaluating Kierkegaard's religious thought are supplied in this study. On the other hand, it does allow Kierkegaard to speak for himself on many important questions. Especially welcome are the sections allotted to Kierkegaard's religious and edifying discourses, which are usually overlooked by scholars. St. Louis University, St. Louis, Mo. JAMEs CoLLINs The Philosophy of Anaxagoras. By FELIX M. CLEVE. New York: King's Crown Press, 1949. Pp. 180. $3.00. The appearance of a work on the earlier Greek philosophers, and especially one on Anaxagoras, should certainly interest the modern philosopher. The very fact that today we have in many instances repeated the errors of these earlier thinkers, should make us anxious to see these minds in their development. Then, when the author in his foreword expresses his intention of revealing precisely this development, eschewing as he says, " our notions which have arisen from later periods of human thought ... ," the reader is prepared to give him full attention. Mr. Cleve has accomplished a necessary piece of work. He has carefully considered the various fragments of Anaxagoras and given them all careful ev.aluation. His analysis is always painstaking. If he at times seems to press the text too far, he is able to point out equivalent lacks in other interpreters of the passage concerned. He has made a very thorough attempt to give us the systematic thought of his subject. As he says, he is rightly more concerned with the thought of Anaxagoras rather than any particular historical interest which it may have. Add to these facts the evident scholarship of the author, his ability to see in the other Greek writers their affinity to the thought of Anaxagoras, his easy style and the pleasing format of the book, and we have a work that will command interest. BOOK REVIEWS 888 Unfortunately the author's reach seems to exceed his grasp. Although he has condemned the anachronistic application of modem notions to the thought of earlier writers, Mr. Cleve begins (p. 13) to talk analogously of a " molecular union " with respect to the " elements " of Anaxagoras.· In later references (pp. 17, 18, 21 ff.) the analogous term seems to become univocal. At all points in this reference the author has apparently a confusion between the dialectical analysis of nature which is the province of the experimental scientist and the scientific (demonstrative) analysis which belongs to the philosopher of nature. One could almost say that he reflects the confusion of his subject on this matter. This may be "objective " reporting, but it must necessarily hold difficulties for the student. Furthermore, there is a doubt in the reader's mind whether this confusion in the report of the writer is reflective or originative. This doubt is furthered when (p. 41) the author uncritically explains the AnaX:agorean elements with the use of algebra. It is also very confusing to find a critical analysis of one Greek writer coupled with a great enthusiasm for the same said writer. This is an especial difficulty when we find in the same work a quite unsympathetic appreciation of the works of at least two of the other Greek writers who have an acknowledged validity. When Mr. Cleve deals with Plato and Aristotle he exhibits none of his flair for readh1g into their words the thought that must have prompted their writings. One gets the feeling that a closer study of these men before attempting the analysis of Anaxagoras would have greatly enhanced...