Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-12-31
THE ANCIENT GREEKS
Who Anticipated Darwin by Advancing
the MOnistIe Theory of Nature.

"PeIhape,h says Prof. Haekel, "the mos
| important among these Ioniam natural phi
| losophers was Anaximander. He assumes
| that out of Ihfnify OF matter through eter-
| nal revolution numerous world-bodiss came
| into being as condensations of the air, and
that the earth, too, as one of these world.
bodies, Issued out OF a state originally fluid
and sfterward aeriform. He consequently
anticipated the fundamental conception,
held at this day, of the natural development
OF the world, which 2400 years subsequently,,
in 1755, our greatest German philosopher,
Immanuel Kant, in his Universal History OF
Nature and Theory Of the BeaUens, universally
established. As here in the genealogical
kingdom, Anaximander appears as forerun-
Der OF Kant and Laplzce. so also at the same
time in the biological kingdom he prcpteti-
cally pre6gures Lsmarck and Darwin. For
according to him the earliest living creatures
on this gloDe originated in water through
the operations of the sun. From these
creatures, later on, were developed the land
inhabiting plants and animals, which left
the wsser and adapted themselves to life on
dry land. Man, likewise, has gradually
worked himself up from animal organism,
and, in reality, from 6sh-like aquatic
animals.
II here, to our surprise, we find clearly
enunciated some OF the most important
fundamental conceptions of our current
theory Of development, we recognize il still
more distinctly in its integrity 100 years
later In Heraclites of Ephesus. He il was
who propounded the princip eLhat . gfeit
uninterrupted process OF development per-
yades the whole universal world that all forms
are involved ii an everlasting current and the
s4ruggle Is ''the father Of all thipgsp Seeing
that nowhere in the world exists absolute
rest, and that all standing still is but APP
,usfr al a H.
sumo a perpetual change of matter, con-
slant variation of form. That il only posi-
bic, however, through the fact that one form
tbrusis out the other, and that the new vio-
lently usurps the old; or, in other words,
through the universal struggle for exist
ence."
This principle of nature set forth by Her
aclites, that everlasting movement or the
struggle among all things is the fundamental
sgent of the world, received a much deeper
Interpretation little later in Empedocles of
Agrigeot, in Sicily. He, too, assumes an I'M
interrupted change OF phenomen5, out finds
the universal fupdamenIa cause of the ever
lasting universal struggle in the two coun-
teracting principles OF hate and love, or, as
our modern physics expresses it, OF the at
traction and repulsion of parts. As the
mixture of bodies is effected by love, so is
their separation by hate. If in the present
day we regard the attraction and repulsiton
of atoms the ultimate ground of all phe-
nomena, we find, then, this fundamental
proposition of our modern doctrine Of
atoms already anticipated in Enpedocles
Il IL, however, still more remarkable
that Empedocies makes the purposive
forms OF organisms come into existence
through the accidental conjunction of
counleracting forces. Out of this great
struggle the living forms now existing
Isve issued yictoriously because they were
beat prepared for the battle, and therefore
most capable of life. Here we have not only
the fundamental conception of DArwin's
theory of selection forestalled, but also the
solution of the great riddle indicated: "Hew
can iganic forms, constituted for particu-
lar purpose, come into existence in purely
mechanical way without the cooperation of
a final cause acting with particular pur-
se?"-the same riddle the solution of
which we account to be Darwin's highest
philosophical merit.
Among all the great philosophers OF clas-
steal antiquity, the three we have already
named, Anaximander, Hersclites and EN-
pedocles, are undoubtedly those who have
most clearly enunciated the most important
elements of the monistic theory OF nature
now prevalent. But besides these we find
other contemporaries of theirs who held
similar conceptions of development, such as
Thaler, Anaximenes, Democritus, Aristotle,
Lucretius, exc.