May 02, 2014
GREAT WINGS!. Man their wings are definitely what they should be known for. The burgers are pretty ok, but THE WINGS! They are big, flavorful, and cheap. I tried both the hot honey BBQ and the regular Hot sauces. The Hot honestly wasn’t very good, but that Hot Honey BBQ is where it’s at!!!
I will definitely be back for sure.
0 Votes for helpful , 0 Komentar
Feb 06, 2014
Ughhh… went here one time and it was the last time… burger was undercooked and besides the sloppy mess they call a burger the beef patty had no type of flavor… I guess for the price u cant really complain.
0 Votes for helpful , 0 Komentar
Lihat semua ulasanright-triangle
JAKARTA – Honey does have many benefits in it. Therefore, it is not surprising that many people consume honey for body health. However, behind the benefits, it turns out that there are taboos that should not be done after drinking honey. If done, it can be considered dangerous to health. Then what are the activities that should not be done after drinking honey?
Don’t go to sleep right away
After drinking honey, you are advised not to go to sleep immediately. Honey has a fairly high-calorie content, which is 64 calories per tablespoon. Meanwhile, sugar contains only 49 calories per tablespoon. Therefore, do not consume honey before bed because the calories contained in it can accumulate in the long term and cause diabetes.
Don’t eat foods high in sugar
Real honey contains magnesium, potassium, antioxidants, and other minerals that are beneficial for the body. However, if consumed in excess it can increase blood sugar levels.
For that, so that you feel the benefits of drinking honey, do not consume foods or drinks high in sugar. This can increase the risk of various diseases, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.
Don’t drink hot honey
Consumption of heated honey can make the compounds in honey difficult to digest. This is because hot honey can produce toxins that make the body experience digestive problems.
In addition to not drinking honey with hot water, traditional medicine prohibits the consumption of ghee with honey or after. The combination of the two can produce toxins for the body.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, French, and Spanish versions are automatically generated by the system. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
First published Mon Oct 21, 2002; substantive revision Mon Jun 3, 2019
Xenophanes of Colophon was a philosophically-minded poet who lived in various parts of the ancient Greek world during the late 6 th and early 5 th centuries BCE. He is best remembered for a novel critique of anthropomorphism in religion, a partial advance toward monotheism, and some pioneering reflections on the conditions of knowledge. Many later writers, perhaps influenced by two brief characterizations of Xenophanes by Plato (Sophist 242c–d) and Aristotle (Metaphysics 986b18-27), identified him as the founder of Eleatic philosophy (the view that, despite appearances, what there is is a changeless, motionless, and eternal ‘One’). In fact, the Xenophanes who emerges from the surviving fragments defies simple classification. He was a travelling rhapsode who criticised the stories about the gods told by the poets, and he defended a novel conception of the divine nature. But he was also a reflective observer of the human condition, a practitioner of the special form of ‘inquiry’ (historiê) introduced by the Milesian philosopher-scientists, and a civic counselor who encouraged his fellow citizens to respect the gods and work to safeguard the well-being of their city.
In his Lives of the Philosophers (Diels-Kranz, testimoniumA1), Diogenes Laertius reports that Xenophanes was born in the smallIonian town of Colophon and flourished during the sixtieth Olympiad(540–537 BCE). Laertius adds that when Xenophanes was“banished from his native city” he “joined thecolony planted at Elea” (in Italy), and also lived at Zancle andCatana (two Greek communities in Sicily). He credits Xenophanes withcomposing verses “in epic meter, as well as elegiacs and iambicsattacking Hesiod and Homer and denouncing what they said about thegods”, with reciting his own works, and with composing poems onthe founding of Colophon and Elea. Later writers add that “heburied his sons with his own hands”, was sold into slavery, andlater released from it. By Xenophanes’ own account (B8) he“tossed about the Greek land” for sixty-seven years,starting at the age of twenty-five.
Diels-Kranz (DK) provides 45 fragments of his poetry (although B4,13, 19, 20, 21 and 41 would be more accurately classified astestimonia), ranging from the 24 lines of B1 to thesingle-word fragments of B21a, 39, and 40. A number of the‘sympotic poems’ (poems for drinking parties) (B1–3, 5, 6,22, and the imitation in C2) were preserved by Athenaeus, while theremarks on the nature of the divine were quoted by Clement (B14–16 and23), Sextus Empiricus (B11, 12, and 24), and Simplicius (B25 and 26).Other snippets survive in the accounts by Diogenes Laertius andAëtius, or as marginal notes in our manuscripts of variousauthors, or as entries in later rhetorical summaries and dictionaries.Seventy-four selections, of which the most extensive is thepseudo-Aristotelian treatise On Melissus, Xenophanes, Gorgias(MXG), make up the collection of testimonia in DK.Laertius’ statement (A1) that Xenophanes “wrote in epic meter,also elegiacs, and iambics” is confirmed by extant poems inhexameters and elegiac meter, with one couplet (B14) a combination ofhexameter and iambic trimeter. Ancient writers referred to a number ofhis compositions as silloi—‘squints’ orsatires, and a critical tone pervades many of the surviving fragments.Three late sources credit Xenophanes with a didactic poem under thetitle Peri Phuseôs (“On Nature”) but notevery allusion to an earlier author’s views “on nature” represented areference to a single work on that subject.
Fragments B11 and B12 describe, and implicitly criticize, thestories about the gods told by Homer and Hesiod.
Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods
all sorts of things that are matters of reproach and censure among men:
theft, adultery, and mutual deception. (B11)
…as they sang of numerous illicit divine deeds:
theft, adultery, and mutual deceit. (B12)
The basis for Xenophanes’ unhappiness with the poets’ accounts isnot explained, but we may infer from the concluding call to pay duehonor to the gods in Xenophanes’ B1 that an attribution of scandalousconduct would be incompatible with the goodness or perfection anydivine being must be assumed to possess (cf. Aristotle Meta.1072b; Plato, Rep. 379b.)
In the well-known fragments B14-16, Xenophanes comments on thegeneral tendency of human beings to conceive of divine beings in humanform:
But mortals suppose that gods are born,
wear their own clothers and have a voice and body. (B14)
Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black;
Thracians that theirs are are blue-eyed and red-haired. (B16)
B15 adds, probably in a satirical vein, that if horses and oxen hadhands and could draw pictures, their gods would look remarkably likehorses and oxen. B17, “…and bacchants of pine stand roundthe well-built house” may represent a criticism of the commonancient belief that a god could assume possession of a physical objectso as to offer protection to its possessor. The ridiculing ofPythagoras’ claim to have recognized the soul of a departed friend inthe voice of a barking dog (B7), together with the attacks ondivination credited to Xenophanes in A52, reflect the broader denial ofknowledge of divine attributes and operations set out in B34.Xenophanes is prepared to offer a positive account of the nature of thedeity (see the following section) but his position appears to be thatwhile no mortal being will ever know about the gods with any degree ofcertainty, we can at least avoid adopting beliefs and practices clearlyat odds with the special nature any divine being must be assumed topossess.
So far as is known, Xenophanes was the first Greek thinker to offera complex and at least partially systematic account of the divinenature. We have already noted how an implicit assumption of divineperfection may underlie his criticisms of Homer, Hesiod, and thetendency to imagine the gods in human form. Of the positivecharacterizations of the divine made in B23–26, perhaps the mostfundamental is B23:
One god greatest among gods and men,
not at all like mortals in body or in thought.
Although the remark has often been read as a pioneering expressionof monotheism, this reading is made problematic by the nearby referenceto ‘gods’ in the plural in the first line and thepossibility that Xenophanes sought to highlight not the onegod but rather the one greatest god (cf. Homer, Iliad12, 243 for the use of ‘one’ (Greek heis)reinforcing a superlative). The relevant measures of divine‘greatness’ are not specified, but the two most obviouschoices would be greatness in honor and power, with honor perhaps themore basic of the two (cf. Iliad 2, 350; 2, 412; 4, 515;Od. 3, 378; 5,4; Hesiod, Theogony 49, 534, 538,etc.). Greatness in power would in turn explain the characterizationsof the divine as perceptive and conscious in all its parts (B24), ableto shake all things by the exercise of his thought (B25), and able toaccomplish everything while remaining forever in the same place orcondition (B26). It is unclear, however, how far Xenophanes himselfrealized the interconnections among the different divine attributes orsought to exploit those connections for didactic purposes. At least asthey have come down to us, none of the remarks on the divine nature(B23–26) contains any of the inferential particles (gar, epei, oun,hoti, etc.) one would normally expect to find in a piece ofreasoned discourse.
Some later writers (A28.6, 31.2, 34–36) report that Xenophanesidentified his ‘one greatest god’ with the entire physicaluniverse—often termed ‘the whole’ or ‘allthings’, and some modern accounts portray Xenophanes as apantheist. But this understanding of Xenophanes’ doctrines seemsinconsistent with his assertion that “god shakes allthings” (B25) that “all things are from the earth and tothe earth all things come in the end” (B27), and that “allthings which come into being and grow, are earth and water”(B29). On the whole, Xenophanes’ remarks on the divine nature areperhaps best read as an expression of a traditional Greek piety: thereexists a being of extraordinary power and excellence, and it isincumbent on each of us to hold it in high regard.
Five fragments touch on traditional subjects of Greek sympoticverse—on proper conduct at symposia (drinking parties), themeasures of personal excellence, and the existence of various humanfoibles or failures. Xenophanes appears to have been particularlyinterested in identifying and discouraging conduct that failed to paydue honor to the gods or posed a risk to the stability and well-beingof the city (or perhaps both). Although these passages may beinsufficiently abstract and demonstrative in character to count as‘philosophical teachings’, they do represent an importantbridge between Greek poetry of the archaic period and the kind ofmoral theorizing practiced by many 5th and 4th-centurythinkers. Xenophanes’ disparagement of the honors accorded to athletes(B2), his call to censor the stories the poets tell about the gods(B1), and counsel to live a life of moderation (B3 and 5, and perhapsB21) all anticipate views expressed in Plato’s Republic(cf. 607a, 378b, 372b.) His criticism of the pursuit of uselessluxuries (B3) also anticipates Socrates’ rebuke of his fellow citizensfor caring more about wealth and power than about virtue(cf. Apology 30b.) His cautionary remarks about knowledge(B34) and reminder of the subjectivity of human taste (B38: “Ifgod had not made yellow honey, they would think that figs were farsweeter”) also reflect a traditional view of human judgment aslimited and conditioned by personal experience. In each of theseareas, Xenophanes’ social commentary represents a continuation of theGreek poetic tradition as well as a step toward explicit philosophicaltheorizing.
We may reasonably conclude from several surviving fragments and alarge number of testimonia that Xenophanes was well aware ofthe teachings of the Milesian philosopher-scientists (Thales,Anaximander, and Anaximenes), and sought to improve on them. While manyof the details of his own ‘scientific’ views remainobscure, the range and interconnectedness of his interests make him animportant figure in the development of Ionian scientific theory.Theodoretus, Stobaeus, and Olympiodorus (all in A 36) credit him with aview of earth as the archê or “firstprinciple” of all things. Yet Galen (also in A36) rejects thisattribution, and B29 equates “all things which come into beingand grow” with “earth and water”. Atwo-substance archê would, moreover, be compatible withthe many references to physical mixtures. A33 credits Xenophanes with aview of the sea as containing many mixtures, while B37 notes thepresence of water in rocky caves, and A50 reports a view of the soul asearth and water. Insofar as some natural bodies are described asconsisting entirely of water (or of a part of water, as in A46 where“the sweet portion” of the water is drawn up from the seaand separated off), it would be best to understand Xenophanes’“two-substance theory” in a distributed sense: all thingsare either earth, or water, or earth combined with water.
Xenophanes appears to have explored many of the same phenomenastudied at an earlier date by the Milesians. B28 presents a view of thenature and extent of the earth’s depths; B30 identifies the sea as thesource of clouds, wind, and rain; B32 comments on the nature of Iris(rainbow); B37 notes the presence of water in caves; B39 and 40 mention“cherry trees” and “frogs”; A38–45 discussvarious astronomical phenomena, and A48 indicates an interest inperiodic volcanic eruptions in Sicily. Hippolytus (A33) creditsXenophanes with a theory of alternating periods of world-wide flood anddrought that was inspired, at least in part, by the discovery offossilized remains of sea creatures at inland locations. Whether or notXenophanes himself traveled to Syracuse, Paros, and Malta where theseremains were found, his use of this information as the basis for abroad explanation of phenomena is an implicit testimonial to theheuristic value of information gained through travel andobservation.
Many testimonia credit Xenophanes with an interest inmeteorological and astronomical phenomena. Not only are these commentsof interest in their own right, they also present us what was arguablyhis single most important scientific contribution–his contention thatclouds or cloud-like substances play a basic role in a great manynatural phenomena. The term nephos (“cloud”)appears only twice in the fragments of his work (in B30 and 32) butmany testimonia either bear directly on the nature of cloudsor make use of clouds in order to explain the nature of otherphenomena. To cite an example of the first type, according to DiogenesLaertius “he says…the clouds are formed by the sun’s vapor[i.e. vapor caused by the heat from the sun’s rays] raising and liftingthem to the surrounding air” (A1.24–5). Aëtius (A46)provides a similar account:
Xenophanes (says that) things in the heavens occur throughthe heat of the sun as the initial cause; for when the moisture isdrawn up from the sea, the sweet portion, separating because of itsfineness and turning into mists, combines into clouds, trickled down indrops of rain due to compression, and vaporizes the winds.
B30 gives us essentially the same view in Xenophanes’ own words:
The sea is the source of water and of wind,
For without the great sea, there would be no wind
Nor streams of rivers, nor rainwater from on high
But the great sea is the begetter of clouds, winds, and rivers.
Having accounted for the formation of clouds in mechanistic termsthrough processes of vaporization and compression Xenophanes proceedsto make use of clouds to explain a large number of meteorlogical andastronomical phenomena. The general claim appears in thepseudo-Plutarch Miscellanies: “he says that the sun andthe stars come into being from the clouds” (A32), and Aëtiusgives us many specific applications:
The stars come into being from burning clouds (A38).
The sort of fires that appear on ships–whom some call the Dioscuri[St. Elmo’s fire]–are tiny clouds glimmering in virtue of the sort ofmotion they have (A39).
The sun consists of burning clouds…a mass of little fires,themselves constructed from the massing together of the moistexhalation (A40).
The moon is compressed cloud (A43).
All things of this sort [comets, shooting stars, meteors] are eithergroups or movements of clouds (A44).
Flashes of lightning come about through the shining of the cloudsbecause of the movement (A45).
As it happens, clouds are natural candidates for theexplanans in a scientific account. Since they are midway inform between a solid and gaseous state they are easily linked withsolids, liquids, and gases of various kinds. And since they occupy aregion midway between the surface of the earth and the upper regions ofthe heavens, they are well positioned to link the two basic substancesof earth and water with many astronomical phenomena.
Another important feature of Xenophanes’ cloud-based approach tounderstanding natural phenomena is the application of this theory to aset of phenomena closely linked with traditional religious belief. Wehave already seen this in the thoroughly naturalistic accounts given ofthe “great sea”, sun, moon, and stars, but nowhere is thecontrast of the old and new ways of thinking more evident than in hiscomments on “Iris”–rainbow:
And she whom they call Iris, this too is by nature a cloud.
Purple, red, and greenish-yellow to behold. (B32)
For the members of Xenophanes’ audience “Iris” referredto the messenger goddess of Homer’s Iliad (2, 686) andHesiod’s Theogony (780) and a set of atmospheric phenomena(halos, coronae, and cloud iridescence) commonly considered portents orsigns of the intentions of divine beings. As the daughter of Thaumas(“marvel”) Iris was the natural marvel parexcellence. Yet for Xenophanes, ‘she’ is really an‘it’ and a ‘this’ (the Greek neuterdemonstrative touto), by nature a purple, red, andgreenish-yellow cloud. It is, moreover, something that is there for us‘to behold’ or ‘to look at’(idesthai). Perhaps nowhere in presocratic philosophy can wefind a clearer expression of the character of the Ionian‘intellectual revolution’—a decision to put aside anolder way of thinking about events grounded in a belief in divinebeings in favor of an approach to understanding the world that employswide-ranging inquiry and direct observation and resorts to strictlyphysical causes and forces. Having deprived the gods of human form andclothing and removed the divine to some permanent and distant location,Xenophanes proceeds to strip a wide range of natural phenomena of allvestiges of religious or spiritual significance. His de-mythologizedaccount of natural phenomena is, in short, the logical complement tohis thoroughly de-naturalized account of the divine nature.
Despite its several virtues, Xenophanes’ physical theory appears tohave had little impact on later thinkers. Anaxagoras followed his leadon the nature of the rainbow (cf. DK 59 B19) and Empedocles knew (butrepudiated) his claim of the earth’s indefinitely extended depths (DK31 B39). But both Plato and Aristotle appear to have ignoredXenophanes’ scientific views or assigned them little importance. Onefactor that may have contributed to this chilly reception was theabsence of any expression by Xenophanes of the kind of commitment toteleology that both Plato and Aristotle regarded as essential to aproper understanding of the cosmos. Xenophanes’ universe is controlledby a set of forces, but it is never described as “heading towardthe best” nor is it directed toward some best result by acontrolling intelligence. (Xenophanes’ divine does “shake allthings” by the thought of his mind (alone), but he is neverdescribed as in any way directing or controlling particular events.) Itis also obvious that Xenophanes’ heavenly bodies would have fallen farshort of the level of perfection that, with Aristotle, became ahallmark of classical astronomical theory. Not only are Xenophanes’heavenly bodies not divine beings, they undergo creation anddestruction at regular intervals. Only from the perspective of a muchlater period can the merits of Xenophanes’ scientific views be fairlyappreciated. Many centuries would have to pass before an emphasis ondirect observation and the use of entirely natural causes and forceswould become the scientific orthodoxy.
Five surviving fragments and roughly a dozen testimoniaaddress what might be termed ‘epistemologicalquestions’—“How much can any mortal being hope toknow?”, “Does truth come to us through our own efforts orby divine revelation?”, and “What role do our sensefaculties play in the acquisition of knowledge?” Unfortunately,the picture that emerges from many of the testimonia largelycontradicts what appear to be the views Xenophanes himselfexpressed. According to the summary in thepseudo-Plutarch Miscellanies, Xenophanes “declares thatthe senses are deceptive and generally rejects reason along withthem” (A32.) Similarly, in his Concerning PhilosophyAristocles reports that “…since they think that senseperceptions and appearances must be rejected and trust onlyreason. For at one earlier time Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno, andMelissus said something of this sort” (A49). Similarly,Aëtius declares that “Pythagoras, Empedocles, andXenophanes (say that) sense perceptions are deceptive”(A49). Yet, as we have noted, B28 refers without qualification to“the upper limit of the earth that is seen (horatai)here at our feet” and B32 appears to encourage those inXenophanes’ audience to ‘look at’ or ‘observe’(idesthai) the multi-colored cloud that is the rainbow. Therealistic description of the sumptuous banquet in B1 and the widerange of Xenophanes’ reported geographical and geological interestsall sit poorly with an Eleatic “rationalism” that woulddismiss all information gained through our faculties of sense andconstruct on the basis of reason alone a view of “what is”as a motionless, changeless and eternal unity.
Xenophanes’ most extended comment on knowledge is B34:
…and of course the clear and certain truth no man has seen
nor will there be anyone who knows about the gods and what I say about all things.
For even if, in the best case, one happened to speak just of what has been brought to pass,
still he himself would not know. But opinion is allotted to all.
Portions of these remarks were quoted, and thereby preserved forposterity, by the ancient skeptics who hailed Xenophanes as the founderof their particular variety of philosophical skepticism. Recentinterpretations of B34 reject the skeptical interpretation in favor ofother less extreme readings. On some accounts, B34 is concerned to denyonly a direct perceptual awareness. Others find in his comments adistinction between natural science, where only probabilities can beachieved, and theology, where certainty is possible. Still others readXenophanes’ remarks as a blanket endorsement of“fallibilism”—the view that while each individual isfree to express his or her opinion, the possibility of error can neverbe completely excluded.
Since B34 opens with the phrase “and indeed…” itis likely that we do not have the whole of the remark, or all thepremises from which its main conclusion was intended to follow.However, the use of the term saphes (“clear”, inthe first line of the fragment) by Xenophanes’ Ionian contemporary, thehistorian Herodotus, provides a helpful clue to the logic of theargument. At several points in his History Herodotus speaks ofwhat is saphes, or what can be known in asapheôs manner, as what can be confirmed to be the caseon the basis of first-hand observation:
And wishing to gain sure knowledge of these things(thelôn de toutôn peri saphes ti eidenai) from apoint where this was possible, I took ship to Tyre in Phoenicia, whereI heard there was a very holy temple of Heracles. There I saw it(eidon) richly equipped… Then I went to Thasos where Ialso found a temple of Heracles…Therefore what I have discoveredby inquiry clearly shows (ta men nun historêmena dêloisapheôs) that Heracles is an ancient god. (HistoryII, 44)
Since the gods were believed to inhabit a realm far removed from that ofmortal beings, it would be natural for Xenophanes to hold that noaccount of their nature and activities could possibly be confirmed onthe basis of first-hand observation, hence known for certain to becorrect. And since the pioneering cosmological accounts put forward byhis Milesian predecessors held that a single material substanceunderlay phenomena in all places and times it would be equallyimpossible for any individual to confirm such a universal claim on thebasis of first-hand observation, hence know for certain that it wastrue—even if in fact it was true. The sentiments expressed in linesthree and four can be read as reinforcing this cautionary sentiment.Their point would be that no one (moreover) should be credited withknowledge (of the certain truth concerning the gods or the nature ofall things) simply on the basis of having correctly described, perhapseven predicted, individual events as they take place (perhaps areference to self-styled paragons of wisdom and predictors of eventssuch as Epimenides and Pythagoras). The overall message of B34, fromits opening reference to “no man” to its concluding phrase“fashioned for all” would have been that there never hasbeen nor ever will be anyone who has the capacity to achieve certaintywith respect to these important matters.
Xenophanes’ reference to a second-best level of comprehension orawareness—‘opinion’ or ‘conjecture’(dokos) should not be read as inherently negative ordismissive. By Platonic standards, opinion—even whencorrect—would be an inferior possession, unstable and subject toremoval through persuasion. But we have no reason to assume thatXenophanes shared Plato’s view on this topic. And in fact B35, quotedby Plutarch in connection with encouraging a bashful speaker toexpress his views, appears to present what one ‘opines’ orbelieves in a fairly positive light:
…Let these things be believed (dedoxasthô) as like the realities…
The similarity between the verbal dedoxasthô of B35and the nominative dokos of B34 permits us to combine the twofragmentary remarks into a single coherent view: of course there can beno knowledge of the certain truth concerning the gods and the basicprinciples governing the cosmos, but dokos—opinion orconjecture—is available and should be accepted when it correspondswith how things really are.
The full sense of B36, however, may never be determined. Neither itscontext (a grammatical treatise of Herodian) nor its wording(“…however many they have made evident for mortals to lookupon”) provides definitive guidance. Perhaps Xenophanes wasseeking to set an upper limit to the range of things that can be knownby human beings (i.e. to caution others that they could know only asmany as things as the gods had made available to them to experience).But it is equally possible that the remark was intended (as B32 above)to encourage the members of his audience to explore and inquire ontheir own (i.e. to encourage them to investigate “however manythings” the gods have made available to them to experience).
B18 has often been hailed as an expression of an optimistic outlookor “faith in human progress”—the conviction thathumankind has made and will continue to make improvements in the artsand conditions of life generally. Yet none of the other survivingfragments reflects such an optimism and several (e.g. B2 and 3) suggestthat Xenophanes was not at all optimistic about his city’s prospectsfor survival. In the light of his reported repudiation of divination(A52), de-mythologizing of various natural phenomena (B30 and 32), andevident enthusiasm for inquiry into a wide range of subjects, B18 isperhaps best read as an expression of faith in the value of‘inquiry’ or ‘seeking’ as the preferredapproach to gaining knowledge of ‘all things’.
To sum up: Xenophanes’ attitude toward knowledge appears to havebeen the product of two distinct impulses. While he believed thatinquiry in the form of travel and direct observation was capable ofyielding useful information about the nature of things, he remainedsufficiently under the influence of an older piety to want to cautionothers against seeking to understand matters that lay beyond the limitsof all human experience. Here, as in other aspects of his thought,Xenophanes stands with one foot in the world of the archaic poet andthe other in the “new science” of the late 6th and early5th centuries BCE
Many later writers identified Xenophanes as the teacher ofParmenides and the founder of the Eleatic “school ofphilosophy”—the view that, despite appearances, what there isis a motionless, changeless, and eternal ‘One’. This viewof Xenophanes is based largely on Plato’s reference to “ourEleatic tribe, beginning from Xenophanes as well as even earlier”(Sophist 242d) and Aristotle’s remark that “…withregard to the whole universe, he says that the one is the god”(Meta. A5, 986b18), along with some verbal similaritiesbetween Xenophanes’ description of the “one greatest, unmovinggod” and Parmenides’ account of a “motionless, eternal, andunitary being”. But the Xenophanes who speaks to us in thesurviving fragments is a combination of rhapsode, social critic,religious teacher, and keen student of nature. Euripides’Heracles 1341 ff. echoes his attack on the stories told aboutthe gods by Homer and Hesiod (B11–12) and a passage of Euripides’Autolycus quoted by Athenaeus (C2) repeats portions of theattack on the honors accorded to athletes delivered in B2. In theRepublic, Plato shows himself the spiritual heir ofXenophanes when he states that the guardians of his ideal state aremore deserving of honors and public support than the victors atOlympia, criticizes the stories told about the gods by the poets, andcalls for a life of moderate desire and action. A pronounced ethic ofmoderation, sometimes bordering on asceticism, runs through much ofancient Greek ethical thought, beginning with Solon and Xenophanes andcontinuing through Socrates and Plato to the Epicureans andCynics. Xenophanes’ conception of a “one greatestgod” who “shakes all things by the thought (or will) ofhis mind” (noou phreni) may have helped to encourageHeraclitus’ belief in an ‘intelligence’(gnômê) that steers all things (B41),Anaxagoras’ account of the nous that orders andarranges all things (B12), and Aristotle’s account of adivine nous that inspires a movement toward perfectionwithout actually doing anything toward bringing it about(Metaphysics Lambda.)
In his Dictionnaire historique et critique (1697) Pierre Bayle beganthe modern philosophical discussion of the problem of evil by quotingXenophanes’ remark (as reported in Diogenes Laertius 9.19) that“most things give way to mind” (ta pollahêssô nou). Accepting the conjecture proposed by theclassical scholar Méric Casaubon, Bayle took Xenophanes to beasserting that God was unable to make all things conform to hisbenevolent will. Bayle then assembled a set of texts in support of theview that in fact the amount of evil in the universe far exceeds theamount of good. Bayle’s article sparked a reply from Leibniz (inhis Théodicée of 1710). In his Candide (1759), Voltairesupported Bayle’s view by ridiculing Leibniz’s contentionthat this is the best of all possible worlds.Although there may be no direct line of influence, we may alsoconsider Feuerbach’s critique of religious belief as a‘projection’ of human attributes, and Freud’s analysis ofreligious belief as an instance of ‘wish-fulfillment’, astwo modern successors to Xenophanes’ observation of the generaltendency of human beings to conceive of divine beings in terms of theirown attributes and capacities.
Xenophanes’ most enduring philosophical contribution was arguablyhis pioneering exploration of the conditions under which human beingscan achieve knowledge of the certain truth. The distinction betweenknowledge and true opinion set out in B34 quickly became an axiom ofancient Greek accounts of knowledge and survives in modern garb as the‘belief’ and ‘truth’ conditions of the‘standard’ or ‘tripartite analysis’ ofknowledge. It can be plausibly argued that every later Greek thinker,at least until the time of Aristotle, undertook to respond to the basicchallenge posed in Xenophanes’ B34—how, given the severely limitedcharacter of human experience, anyone can plausibly claim to havediscovered the truth about matters lying beyond anyone’s capacity toobserve first-hand. Xenophanes may also be credited with expanding therange of topics considered appropriate for philosophical inquiry anddiscussion. His Ionian predecessors had initiated the study ofphenomena “above the heavens and below the earth” but, sofar as we know, they did not turn their critical fire against theleading poets of ancient Greece nor did they seek through theirteachings to correct or improve the conduct of their fellow citizens.Although many aspects of his thought remain the subject of scholarlydebate, Xenophanes was clearly a multi-dimensional thinker who left hismark on many aspects of later Greek thought.