The continuum of the so-called pluralist philosophers

After Eleaticism, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus attempt to reconcile the many, which exists from the outset, with the Eleatic one. Aristotle’s concept of the continuum pertains to the nature of physical magnitude, which is both one and many. Thus, the pluralists’ theories regarding the multiplicity of principles that constitute unity are, for Aristotle, theories concerning the continuity of the primordial body as well as individual natural entities. This chapter examines the continuum in the thought of these three philosophers, highlighting their similarities and differences, and showing both their alignment with Eleatic ideas and the weaknesses Aristotle notices in their theories. In Aristotle’s view, Empedocles’ continuum has the advantage of being limited, as well as one and homogeneous, but it is never truly both one and many. Empedocles’ natural entities are formed by the juxtaposition of particles and are not continuous bodies. Anaxagoras’ mixture is infinite in magnitude, as Anaximander’s apeiron, and it is not a continuum in the proper sense, as it consists of a juxtaposition of seeds, so it is not even a real mixture. Similarly, Democritus’ common body is a multiplicity that cannot constitute a true unity. Specifically, the indivisibles, having neither limits nor parts, can be neither continuous nor contiguous with one another. Without achieving continuity, atoms not only fail to serve as the principles of bodies—each of which is one—but they also do not explain the existence of motion.