Title: Allocriticism and Autocriticism in the Views of Xenophanes of Colophon

Author: Dariusz Kubok

Citation style: Kubok Dariusz. (2015). Allocriticism and Autocriticism in the Views of Xenophanes of Colophon. „Littera Antiqua” (Nr 10 (2015), s. 261- 281)

an constitute which deity, the regarding passages the are assertions these Among assertions. dogmatic as Colophon in turn, in Empiricus, Sextus translation. 127) was everything that Galen ( authors. ancient of texts the in found be can testimonies Such certain. quite is he which of things few 2 1 Bd. from Greek the contrary, noted where Except discussions. philosophical long, historically a using th recognize help to distinguishing skepticism) for dogmatism, negative model dogmatism, general (positive certain standpoints aphilosophical basic as three typology Sextus' to referring only am I that stipulate see: subject, this on more For found. be cannot it both that nor including general, in found, be can dogmatism truth that state neither of can he that declares skeptic negation A dogmatism. negative and a positive is skepticism whereas found, be cannot truth po these clarify To dogmatism. negative D (especially passages other in however, other, the On dogmatism. negative as but skepticism, as not classified be must statement whic of things, the of and gods the of knowledge possess will who anyone be never fragment in writes Xenophanes when Thus, not. or reached, be will fi from refrain to forced is skeptic the thus, cognized; been yet not has it that awareness simultaneous the with truth, for search 1 anti distingui precisely notdoes he Since word.the of sensebroadest the inthinker critical considereda rightly is he this, Despite found. be cannot truth that upholding simultaneously while truth for searches dogm negative skeptical called be may whichview a to adheres he rather, positions; two these between differentiate adequately not found. be can elementsdogmatic negative and skeptical anti an as taken

Skepticism It is worth noting that Xenophanes is autocritical, but not completely autoc completely not but autocritical, is Xenophanes that noting worth is It Littera Antiqua - dogmatism refers solely to positive dogmatism. positive to solely refers dogmatism – Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker der Fragmente Die kpiim n t zttc ieso i a epeso o broadly of expression an is dimension zetetic its in Skepticism

Hist. phil Hist. 3, Zürich 1985. 1985. Zürich 3,

em in the context of the views of Xenophanes. At the same time, I am aware that I am am I that aware am I time, same the At Xenophanes. of views the of context the in em –

hupatuphos from the perspective of Sextus' typology ( typology Sextus' of perspective the from . 7, D 7, . - - later typology to analyze Xenophanes' thought thought Xenophanes' analyze to typology later dogmatic position. However, in in However, position. dogmatic sh between skepticism and negative dogmatism, however, his criticism as criticism his however, dogmatism, negative and skepticism between sh one, and this was a god who was limited, rational, changeless." Graham’s (2010: (2010: Graham’s changeless." rational, limited, was who god a was this and one, - K 21A35) writes: "Xenophanes was in doubt about everything, being certain only only being certain everything, about wasdoubt in "Xenophanes writes: K21A35) Hereafter cited as D Hereaftercited

nal, decisive judgments and cannot dogmatically determine whether the truth truth the whether determine dogmatically cannot and judgments decisive nal, in the wih en ta h ws setc h dd o ent not did who skeptic a was he that means which , - B 8 Xnpae peet a kpia ve ta de nt ed into lead not does that view skeptical a presents Xenophanes 18) B K Allocriticism and Autocriti

V . iews of Xenophanes Griechisch und Deutch von H. Diels, herausgeg. von W. Kranz, Kranz, W. von herausgeg. Diels, H. von Deutch und Griechisch iin, e a sy ht eaie omts dcae that declares dogmatism negative that say can we sitions, - K.

ts, n codne ih hc oe continually one which with accordance in atism, Pyr 261 . (I, 224, cf Diog. IX, 18) describes Xenophanes of of Xenophanes describes 18) IX, Diog. cf 224, (I, . Pyr. 2 Woleński 1992: 18 1992: Woleński asgs f eohns wrs both works Xenophanes' of passages

Thus, Xenophanes criticizes all claims all criticizes Xenophanes Thus, , I, 1 I, , 1

It seems that the Colophonian doesColophonian the that seems It - (University ofSilesia in Katowice) 4) of Colophonof

- -

assumes investigation, a constant constant a investigation, assumes D a typology burdened with many many with burdened typology a cism - K B 34 that is no one and will will and one no is that 34 B K text of the fragments is taken taken is fragments the of text „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera ritical, because there are a are there because ritical, - 19.

- nesod criticism understood

Here, I would like to like would I Here, rl fe hmef of himself free irely

D h he speaks, this this speaks, he h ARIUSZ K UBOK

w w w . l i t a n t . e u article. this analysis in of subject the is andscope, universality dogmatism’s negative all that fact the opi only of are convictions human aware is Xenophanes that possibility the exclude therefore, cannot, absolute We not final. is andcertainty Xenophanes’ that say can we assumptions, these of light the In gods. the of about comments Xenophanes’ of conception all of presuppositions aim epistemological the emphasize be to would God the the interpretation, this in systematizing gods; the of at conceptions traditional attempts hand, from other the alle On Xenophanes’ Aristotle). result and Plato by may (especially commentators later by monism tradition philosophic supposed Xenophanes’ dogmatism. perm also is interpretation my In another Sextus. and Galen opinion, autocritical of opinions the completely of Littera basis the not on things), is few a of Xenophanes certain quite that is he (because interpretation the accept can we Thus, statements. from as Xenophanes treats Empiricus Sextus ontology. this to ascribed one) is commentator (everything many For thinker. theses monistic the as well as theology, positive a of expression c of objects the be may products their and actions Both cognition. creative and ethical), example, (for namely, problemthe of allocriticism autocriticism.and man wise the as problem understoodseemsrelationship,concerningis a thoughcriticismit this thatreflection as on Antiqua be can issue This opinions. hold only can which ( opinion knowledge,possesscannot thusmaking and possess not does this others, like 34, Xenophanes, either B dichotomy: a fragment to down of boils problem entirety the of context the In exception? epistemic an constitutes no that rather or Xenophanes, does neither and knowledge, possesses one no that case the it Is rule. this to exception an himself considered he whether or Xenophanes, including beings, human all to refers knowledge distinct and statement the if arises question the words, other In exceptions. for allowed it whether or universal, be to professed he dogmatism negative the considered he whether to as appears question another context, this In unattainable. is truth the spoken is Xenophanes] that such objective least which (at to unattainable according is thesis, knowledge final and definitive a expresses also sentence) last th (excluding 34 B fragment own his that noticing not seemingly truth, final and positive to tuphos Generally speaking, critique is a cognitive action that accompanies scientific, practical scientific, accompanies that action cognitive a is critique speaking, Generally δόκοι), or Xenophanes does possess knowledge in contrast to the rest of mankind, of rest the to contrast in knowledge possess does Xenophanes or δόκοι), ad o a nt e fed isl cmltl o te roac o (positive of arrogance the of completely himself freed yet not has so and , ritique. In the case analyzed here, we are taking into account scientific cognition, scientific account into taking are we here, analyzed case the In ritique.

περὶ ged new positive theology can be treated as a way of expressing opposition to to opposition expressing of way a as treated be can theology positive new ged

πάντων

), just like the hypothetical metaobjective knowledge that knowledgemetaobjective hypothetical the like just ), nions (B 34, 4), including his own. This issue, as well as the problem of problem the as well as issue, This own. his including 4), 34, (B nions s, Xenophanes’ skepticism is in conflict with his positive theology and and theology positive his with conflict in is skepticism Xenophanes’ s,

him one of those, who make do only with belief andmakewithonlybelief do those, who one of him

issible, which alleviates Xenophanes’ alleged positive positive alleged Xenophanes’ alleviates which issible, 262 hupatuphos

n psess nweg, u h himself he but knowledge, possesses one ἀμφὶ

that is, as someone who is partly free free partly is who someone as is, that

θεῶν

that no man possesses clear possesses man no that

τε „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

καὶ

s concerning notions notions s concerning ἅσσα

λέγω

) dogmatic dogmatic ) -

one has one masses

such, [scil. e

w w w . l i t a n t . e u and inconsistence. refutation 3 Two thingsmust be added here: called be may position a (such dogmatism negative of be co ofknowledgepossibilitywouldthe to reference in criticism Such knowledge. such possess can one no that assertion the to down boil case this in would of effect the an allocriticism of knowledge; enjoinment the as criticism, Full knowledge. such certain possess cannot possess subject critiquing the that future, assertion the be the would hand, other the in on autocriticism, or now, either can subject, critiqui the excluding one, no that assertion the be would allocritique of effect the then knowledge, possessing of possibility the be to critique of object the take we If autocritical. a aimed was knowledge. such attain ever could one no that conviction the be would positions these of both of sum (epist knowledge attain not could also he that presume he did or version), modal its in allocriticism (epistemological knowledge possesscould himself he except one no that think he did words, other In knowledge. certain t regards in thinker autocritical or allocritical an was ofbasisfragmentsOntheofXenophanes' extant consider critique. mustwe texts, whether he aut the of (statements) products allocriticism concerns these actions products and relationin to buteveryone author of the the cognitive and actions cognitive the object its as takes Autocriticismknowledge. possessing of possibility the level, objective the at and

It should be noted here that GND, in contrast to skepticism, is vulnerable to the accusatio the to vulnerable is skepticism, to contrast in GND, that here noted be should It Littera Antiqua and justifyingand a given statement. 34,4; B(B 18; B35); ( τὸ The thesis that Xenophanes was an allocritical thinker is not controversial (his criticismcontroversial(his not is allocritical thinker anXenophanes that was thesis The

σαφές (2) (1)

ohr hnes; h qeto dsue i wehr r o h ws also was he not or whether is disputed question the thinkers); other t

rtcs s nesodhr a a vlain f h psiiiy f accepting of possibility the of evaluation an as here understood is Criticism knowledge certain and clear of possibility the of here speaking only are We -

B 34, 1), not of doxal knowledge laying claim to final certainty, for example for certainty, final to claim laying knowledge doxal of not 1), 34, B

mlgcl uortcs ntemdl eso) The version)? modal the in autocriticism emological 263 general negative dogmatism, GND). dogmatism, negative general te usin f h pseso of possession the of question the o - extensive with the position the extensive with „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera d autocriticism, d o, which hor, ns of self of ns ng - 3

w w w . l i t a n t . e u the in fought passionately so Plato which sophists, Sophist the of views be relativist the would that option true an is it Such though knows. sense some in everyone that asserting exists position third a opinion, to condemned is everyone that assumes that one the and distinction opining 5 and others) among 4 2, states 34, B which in described further is (knowledge) truth this Secondly, know. will or perceived fragment D autocritical and allocritical, or that he was only allocritical. both was he that probable: more make Xenophanes concerning testimonies the thesis which potent consider must anthropomorphism, we Thus, thought. (eg. this undermine to viewpoints seem metempsychosis) zoomorphism, other various of critique the containing Xenophanes of passages the but division, this of conscious be not need one GND professing base is opiningtheoroneselfgeneralof includingexcludingthe of from issuethe that mass seems It distinguish.andthesignifyingterm,tothe than broadestdividecriticism abilitythe senseof tha here noting worth is It himself? exclude he did or binding, is thesis this which in range the in himself include truth, distinct and clear the possess would who anyone be will nor was, neither there that proclaiming in excludi positionallocritical an on remained he whether or

Criticism refers back to the terms: terms: backthe refers to Criticism hoeial, t i it Theoretically, Littera Antiqua In reference to Xenophanes' philosophy, we must then ask whether he professedGND,whether he ask thenmust Xenophanes'philosophy, we to reference In Firstly, the word the Firstly, , revealing the possibility and form of falsehood, leaned in that in direction. falsehood,leaned of andform possibility the revealing , d on elementary distinction of oneself from others. Of course, we can accept that in that accept can we course, Of others. from oneself of distinction elementary on d h ab The - αὐτὸς εἰ εἰδὼς καὶ K B 34.

γὰρ ἀμφὶ

τὸ

s also possible to hold that aside from the position that upholds the knowing knowing the upholds that position the from aside that hold to possible also s v saeet ad yooy f rtcs rqie lrfcto i lgt of light in clarification require criticism of typology and statements ove kritikos

ἀμφὶ

ὅμως μὲν καὶ

θεῶν

τὰ οὖν

θεῶν τὸ

(critical, able to distinguish, deciding, among others). deciding, distinguish, able to (critical, οὐκ

μάλιστα

σαφές σαφὲς τε

οἶδε

τε καὶ

krino καὶ ·

δόκος

(B 34, 1) means certain and cle and certain means 1) 34, (B οὔτις

τύχοι ἅσσα

t this problem refers to a more narrow understanding of understanding narrow more a to refers problem this t ἅσσα

(to separate, distinguish, judge, evaluate, explain, investigate, investigate, explain, evaluate, judge, distinguish, separate, (to

ἀνὴρ δ

τετελεσμένον '

λέγω λέγω ἐπὶ 264

ἴδεν πᾶσι

περὶ si. Xenophanes] [scil.

οὐδέ

τέτυκται

πάντων

εἰπών τις 5 ng autocriticism. Did Xenophanes, autocriticism.Did ng

ἔσται ·

· ,

ar truth, which no one has one no which truth, ar

„Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera περὶ

πάντων ifcl t uphold, to difficult Thirdly, . ial - 4

w w w . l i t a n t . e u 9 8 7 καθέστηκεν 6 supraempiricalcontraryis uncertain,knowledge. toempirical reality a about knowledge that states he 34 B fragment In empiricist. an as but dogmatic), negative himself consider not epistemicallysingled did he that least at counted or Xenophanes opinion, to that condemned those proclaiming among view himself this hold also Colophon, from thinker the of interpretations detailed scire.‛ their in Dei differing though opinari,scholars, contemporary haec est, enim hominis ponam, contendam quid non putem, τέτυκται’,‛ πᾶσι ἐπὶ δ' ‘δόκος ἀλήθειαν, τὴν οἷδε μὲν θεὸς writes former The knowledge. divine and opinion human oppose who Didymus, alloi.e.bothcriticism, full professed Xenophanes interpretation, Sextus' of light In knowledge. objective indicated c he that signify as mankind understood Xenophanes] possess would whoanyone, be there will nor not, was there that Xenophanesasserts that holds issue this to περὶ not will and not possess did himself he that asserts the Xenophanes hand, that other holds the position on autocritical πάντων; περὶ Xenophanes+ *scil. λέγω ἅσσα καὶ τε θεῶν ἀμφὶ futu or past the in either himself he but one no would there that asserted Xenophanes that states issue this to regards in position allocritical the Thus, it. about knowledge possess will who future, the in one no be likewise in truth this perceived has one no that asserts Xenophanes

Arius Didymus ap. Stob. ap.Stob. Didymus Arius Fränkel 1925. Fränkel ap.Augustinus, Varro „*...+ Littera Antiqua

πάντων n ets cmet o famn B 4 w cn id t etoe ta Xenophanes that mentioned it find can we 34, B fragment on comments Sextus' In ἄνδρα σαφές

ὁ

δὲ

. Full criticism, as the combination of autocriticism and allocriticism, in regards in allocriticism, and autocriticism of combination the as criticism, Full . περὶ ἀνήρ

τὸν cran n cer truth) clear and (certain σαφές ut hmef mn toe wo i nt ae n wl nt ae the have not will and have not did who those, among himself ounts

. πάντων ‛ Sext. Emp., Emp., Sext. ‛

ἄνθρωπον

- De civ. dei civ. De out. -

and autocriticism.and sameThe and interpretationVarro Ariusby isheld

Ecl cran n c and (certain γένος H. Fränkel treats Xenophanes not as a skep a asXenophanestreatsFränkel not H. . .

II, 1, 17 (D 17 1, II,

, , VII, 17. VII, , τῷ Adv. Math Adv. , using as a designation for this the name the this for designation a as using ,

εἰδικῷ - ewowud possess would who re K 21 24). KA 21

er truth) lear ., VII, VII, 50. .,

καταχρώμενος ἀμφὶ 265

θεῶν

ἀμφὶ

τε

ἀντὶ

καὶ

θεῶν

τοῦ σαφές ἅσσα

7

h ps, n ta tee will there that and past, the while the latter notes: "Quid notes: latter the while

γένους τε

λέγω (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera (certain and clear truth) clear and (certain 9

tic (more precisely: as aprecisely:as (more tic καὶ Guthrie comments in acommentsinGuthrie · εἶδος

si. Xenophanes] [scil. ἅσσα ἀνήρ

the writings of writings the γὰρ 6

This would This λέγω

ἀνθρώπου ‚ : 8 ἄρα ὡς

Many [scil.

w w w . l i t a n t . e u 17 16 to us for 15 remains it Thus, privileged. cognitively 12, Fretschel. trans. L. 2004: Marcinkowska degree.‛ equal an to own Xenophanes' and philosophers way any in ack or inspired himself considers 14 330. the from) excludes argued, is it as then, 13 12 11 398. 1962: Guthrie God.‛ thatfor wasall: reserved at knowledge havecertain no mencould that of realms two posited existence Xenophanes that affirm cannot we "[...] adds: he Xenophanes, in cognition of objects different two of existence the assuming interpretation the on Commenting 396. 1962: Guthrie confe must he honesty and modesty all in yet truth, the is feels personally he what forward puts he place their In right. be could them of none that conclusion 10 Gigon O. survived. not have subject this on writings his that or this, about write not did simply Colophon from thinker the that either indicate could which knowledg divine in participate could man how certain not is it that fact the to attention men.‛ of assumptions false usual the above soar to trusts Xenophanes assumption, this of allo only be would light In knowledge. possessed he only thought he that thoughtothers,theofthatbelieved to he to be and epistemically himself privileged, meaning "like Xenophanes, that suggest vaguely Heraclitus, felt himself to be in special state ofknowledge this they for reason.‛ 192), fr. Kirk&Raven in or 38, B fragment h that fact the as well as Xenophanes,by discussed man of limitations cognitive the of issue essentialthe indicate fact Lesher, a of combination a advocating spirit, similar

Kirk, Raven 1964: 180. Raven Kirk, 1964: 1 1978: Lesher 193 1966: Heitsch Gigon 1968: 178. 1968: Gigon 143. 1960: Snell H I i o fundamental of is "It This author notes that "absolutely nothing in the fragments of Xenophanes indicates that he he that indicates Xenophanes of fragments the in nothing "absolutely that notes author This

nowledge that the pessimistic statement contained in fr. 34 concerns the views of other other of views the concerns 34 fr. in contained statement pessimistic the that nowledge Littera Antiqua e writes: "His observations of the widely differing beliefs of mankind had led Xenophanes to the to Xenophanes led had mankind of beliefs differing widely the of observations "His writes: e

On the other hand, some scho some hand, other the On 12 , of one of which men could have certain knowledge, and of the other only opinion. He said said He opinion. only other the of and knowledge, certain have could men which of one of ,

Philippoussis, - 21.

-

235. critical,

importance also to notice here that Xenophanes includes himself in (rather (rather in himself includes Xenophanes that here notice to also importance 13

and Marcinkowska, and

not autocritical. For B. Snell B. autocritical.For not idctd h cnrs bten os n mn epcal in (especially men and gods between contrast the indicated e

lars are convinced that Xenophanes' criticism refers only refers criticism Xenophanes' that convinced are lars οὔτις

ἀνήρ 266 llocriticism and autocriticism, and llocriticism 14

among others. Though Kirk and Raven do in do Raven and Kirk Though others. among and, consequently, his his consequently, and, ss that as all men are fallible, so may he be.‛ he may so fallible, are men all as that ss

"it is evident that Xenophaneshimselfthat evident is "it 16

oee, hs coa draws scholar this However, 17

comments in a similar tone,similar a in comments „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera dokos .‛ Philippoussis 1989: Philippoussis .‛ 15 10

as do Heitsch, do as

e, e, 11

w w w . l i t a n t . e u 21 differences main the of one for makes destiny, from 30. 1965: Cleve Heraclitus.‛ Ephesian the reformer, religious andthat other Xenophanes between sufferings the on meaning bestow his to of failure hue and mood the "Accordingly, the theorogon rather contemplative, writes: rather is ‘religion’ He dimension. psychological the in views scholar anti 20 19 Gajda Heraclitus.‛ in opposition same the find we masses; opposi wisdom significant the with his contact in come is we thought masses, philosophical 'opining' rather or masses, this in 18 Thus, knowledge. possess latter the as gods the with contrasted such, as people about there speaks he as opinion, to bound those among himself counting criticism, full of sugg unambiguously above cited 34 B fragmentu to Didymus Arius and Varro, Sextus, of comments The criticism. of forms mentioned two wh 34 fr. of ‘man’ in himself included he that and sceptic a was Xenophanes that unthinkable is "it that state He autocriticism.Xenophanes' asserting interpretation the against is polemic, wh Yonezawa, the other. between dichotomy the of form the the on allocriticism only and hand, one the on autocriticism and allocriticism of combination in presented I which problem, essential that of part the on in found be autocriticism can Xenophanes epistemological asserting position the of critique detailed understanding.ancient the in also understanding,but modern the in only not skepticism the of herald devout any prophet.‛ by a of substantiated authoritativeness the not with preached indeed is It is arguments. philosophical doctrine "his that asserts scholar This prophet. a as owi views,Xenophanes' autocriticismin of possibility similarity. a such indicates openly Krynicka Xenophanes and Heraclitus the regarding oppositionwise ofthe mantothe masses. Gajda J. indicate may which

Cleve 1965: 27. 1965: Cleve Yonezawa 1989: Yonezawa Cleve 1965: 28. It is worth noting here that according to Cleve Cleve to according that here noting worth is It 28. 1965: Cleve J. G J.

Littera o deniedhe having ‘certain truth.’‛ Antiqua - autocritical interpretation interpretation autocritical ajda It is worth examining the extant fragments of Xenophanes from the perspective of the of perspective the from Xenophanes of fragments extant the examining worth is It - Krynicka writes: "Only he knows the truth! What distinguishes Xenophanes from ignorant ignorant from Xenophanes distinguishes What truth! the knows he "Only writes: Krynicka

438.

- s agmns il t a ag dge, osiue h bss o my for basis the constitute degree, large a to will, arguments ose

n i opinion his in es Megisto Heis -

there is a difference between Xenophanes and Heraclitus, which this this which Heraclitus, and Xenophanes between difference a is there h wr o S Ynzw. hs coa acrtl recognizes accurately scholar This Yonezawa. S. of work the s, 21 Xnpae cno b vee a te ahr of father the as viewed be cannot Xenophanes ‛

-

h eitne f prle b parallel a of existence the 267 18

F. M. Cleve, on the other hand, excludes the excludes hand, other the on Cleve, M. F. n pathogon. This lack in emotional appeal, this appeal, emotional in lack This pathogon. n est that Xenophanes stood on the position the on stood Xenophanes that est –

sofie - Krynicka 2007: 119 2007: Krynicka ng to the fact that he treats this thinkerthis treats he that fact the to ng . For the first time in the history of of history the in time first the For . –

in contrast to other advocates of th of advocates other to contrast in tion of the 'wise man' and the the and man' 'wise the of tion „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera - 120,Fretschel. trans. L. ten h ves of views the etween 19

As "the As

20

A

e -

w w w . l i t a n t . e u 24 2014. Kubok Hesiod self in believe both Thus, tradition. accepted unreflectively from oneself critic the in expressed humility, to thanks only is It knowledge. certain to rigorous other claim laying the reason of on arrogance a the Xenophanes, negate to greed. seems andhand, in arrogance of believes themselves rid as Hesiod well as nature, Xenophanes. and (law) gods of those necessa and the obtain to man allows which work justice, and work between relationship that in ideas Hesiod's between his t in in humans formulated of image the in described gods the Theogony of notions with connected those to only views, 23 truth clear and certain the Xenophanes] possesses would one no is there say fragme should we this Rather, that problems. these to solution some chooses everyone that i.e. opinions, his has to wants everyone that suggests all it but rejected, be above cannot proposal latter the course, Xenophanes Of universality. subjective opinion, mythe understand (I In opinion them. of universality about objective the opinion emphasize their have men all It that 434. not 1989: Yonezawa them.‛ about (δόκος) opinion their have seems, men "all 34: B fr. of sentence last " takes he that states he 15, footnote In 433. 22 zoomorphism 15), (B potential 16), B 14, B 12, B 11,anthropomorphism 7),(B metempsychosis (B of concept the 3), the of goodteleological the onof lack reflection a 2), (B values the 2), (B champions Olympic for profits and of contents the in 5), lacking Bspeeches 1, (B feasts at customs 1), (B arrogance critique: indirect or direct of the16), inhabitantsColophon. and (A of becritiqueseemSimonidesto Epimenides(B21), Pythagoras 20),(B (B7),Hermioneof Lasos u 12) B 11, B 10, (B Hesiod and from verse 4. oppose: can we passage

rfetvl ct tee etmne. sd fo tee w eape, ute ojcs of objects further examples, two these from Aside testimonies. these cite nreflectively Yonezawa also mentions the antithesis: nobody ( nobody antithesis: the mentions also Yonezawa See: Marcovich 1978: 1. 1978: Marcovich See: Litteracriti Xenophanes' that here noting worth is It Antiqua There can be no doubt that Xenophanes is an allocritical thinker. He critiques Homer critiques He thinker. allocritical an is Xenophanes that doubt no be can There

however, that Xenophanes is would rather say that that say rather would is Xenophanes that however, – . In my opinion, the critique does not encompass Hesiod's moral recommendations recommendations moral Hesiod's encompass not does critique the opinion, my In .

through work and toil, Xenophanes Xenophanes toil, and work through

περὶ 22 he

nt states that those, who speak about all these things are condemned to opinion, as opinion, to condemned are things these all about speak who those, that states nt

Opera et dies et Opera πάντων arete

superstition of bacchanals (B17), meteorological superstitions 32), (B the

. μέν

and benefits (B 1), a lack of piety (B 1), people's excessive respect excessive people's 1), (B piety of lack a 1), (B benefits and

. Moreover, we can even go so far as to show the essential similarities similarities essential the show to as far so go even can we Moreover, .

al (zetetic) approach, that it is possible to find what is better, and free free and better, is what find to possible is it that approach, (zetetic) al from verse 1 verse from

23

o ter oin o te os ad hs l toe who those, all thus and gods, the of notions their for πᾶσι 24

– In the objectivetheInlayer, follo the - que in reference to Hesiod does not extend to all of his of all to extend not does Hesiod to reference in que

through a philosophical sear philosophical a through δ

268 as masculine with Burnet.‛ Yonezawa translates the the translates Yonezawa Burnet.‛ with masculine as ' from verse 4, and 4, verse from ' οὔτις roeu dsenet f h heacy of hierarchy the of discernment erroneous

ἀνήρ δόκος ) – ἀμφὶ

everybody ( everybody

is allotted to all (Lesher's proposal), proposal), (Lesher's all to allotted is πᾶσι polis

θεῶν σαφές - perfection and in the "better": "better": the in and perfection

as a neuter), not simply the simply not neuter), a as (B 2), useless pleasures(B useless2), (B „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

ch and investigation. See: investigation. and ch τε πάντες

from verse 1 verse from wing becomewingobjects ry humility before the before humility ry καὶ

). Yonezawa 1989: 1989: Yonezawa ). ἅσσα

λέγω -

δόκος

[scil. [scil.

w w w . l i t a n t . e u 110. δὲ 30 τῶν 29 ‘philosophical or 28 ‘wholesale’ the then rather sort ‘retail’ usual the 71. 1992: Lesher *...+‛. fragment 34 in found often scepticism’ was ‘scepticism’ his life) his i least (at that think to reason some provides connection this in uncertainty some of expression "Xenophanes’ writes: He texts. the in of mention no is there which investigation, constant su may which dogmatism, negative 27 26 25 everyone for binding is it that suggest to seems thesis this of generality The justification. argument rather permits but acatalepsy, universal proclaim not did Colophon from thinker the second, the ( cognizable is nothing that profess to was Xenophanes first, the to According interpretations. divergent to such asfacts his age. negative philosophical of expression dogmatism, an as literally read be not should passage this that οἶδα " statement: the is comments biographical these of summary A birth. has his he of moment the from years added be must 67 years more 25 which for to soil, Hellenic that on wandered states Xenophanes 8, B is fragment it In though descriptions. reading, biographical autocritical the of opponents by omitted fragment himself, a noting worth Xenophanes is It knowledge. of of possibility the concerns it person layer objective the in the whereas with connected is controversy the layer, subjective generalandmosttheIn disputable. toseemsbe 34, which B accountfr. into take not does 14) (A one impious an by person pious a on made oath a for demand

‚ translation. Lesher's 434 1989: list: Yonezawa's own See „ „

ehr cuaey omns n hs rget tog h ue te em kpiim nta of instead skepticism term the uses he though fragment, this on comments accurately Lesher τὴν Ξενοφάνης φαίνεται Littera Antiqua Οὗτος

ζητουμένων

λέγειν ets miiu, n omnig n rget 34 B fragment on commenting in Empiricus, Sextus

δοξαστήν δόκος

toa srcue Vre 1 Verses structure. ational μὲν

μὴ 27 πάντα

ἐτύμως

though it is worth noting Xenophanes' wel Xenophanes' noting worth is it though μὲν δὴ

πᾶσαν as a criterion. a as ‛ Sext. Emp., Emp., Sext. ‛ ·

τοῦτο οὔ

κατά

ἀκατάληπτ

φησιν things‛). these concerning truly speak to how know I ("if ‛

κατάληψιν

γὰρ τινας

εἶναι

ἐμφαίνει Adv. Math Adv.

30 εἰπὼν

This passage can also be looked at from the perspective of its of perspective the from at looked be also can passage This

α κριτήριον

ggest that for Xenophanes, the question of his age was the object of of object the was his age of question the Xenophanes, for that ggest ἀναιρεῖν ), - 435. 28

πάντα

thus rejecting all possible criteria of truth. of criteria possible all rejecting thus τὸ ., VII, 52. VII, .,

- cnan gnrl hss wie ess 3 verses while thesis, general a contain 2

‘ δόκος

ἀληθείας ἀλλὰ ἀκατάληπτα 269

δ

' τὴν ἐπὶ

διὰ ἐπιστημονικὴν πᾶσι ‛. Sext. Emp., Emp., Sext. ‛.

τὸ

τέτυκται

l μηδὲν - founded restraint even in regards in even restraint founded

εἶναι f eohns gvs two gives Xenophanes, of ’.

καὶ ‛ Sext. Emp., Emp., Sext. ‛ Adv. „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

καταληπτὸν

ἀδιάπτωτον εἴπερ

Math 25 . Of course, this list this course, Of . n this late period of period late nthis ., VII, 49. VII, .,

ἐγὼ 29 fe ue in used often Adv. Math Adv.

According toAccording

,

26 περὶ ἐν ἀπολείπειν

- It is clear is It

its are 4 τῇ

τῶν

φύσει ., VII, VII, ., the

δ '

w w w . l i t a n t . e u meta, goal). perfection, while (fulfillment), 32 betwee difference the opinion, my In light. thenot. are mortals while dark, the being in of aware is he to factthat the down of boils Xenophanes reality the to Xenophanes access while darkness, has of himself world a inhabit mortals that suggest views Xenophanes' of reading use philosophical can later we however, the Nonetheless, by illus to others. metaphors Sextus' down and Plato, weighed Parmenides, is Pythagoreans, the interpretation eg. Sextus' tradition, that doubtless is sugge to It seems darkness. Sextus man. enveloping darkness of vision a by Emp., (Sext. attained be can this about knowledge no peopl to likened gold fact, in is, Emp., it that (Sext. (certainty) knowledge possess not does he it), of convinced is (and gold finds searching someone to compared is truth for searchs who someone 31 argument with the assertion that this concludes Xenophanes Therefore, knowledge. certain possess not does he that knows tha thesis the to regards in formulated be can argument same this however, hand, other the On regress. infinite of kind some suggest even could argument an such indeed, knowled to have also would he knowspossesseshethatassume that he this knowledge. mortals, certain Ofcourse,metaobjective this other all to contrary knows, alone he that assert indeed the that thesis had one knowledgethat the defend to forced be would the views of Xenophanes' Opponents it. of possessed reading had autocritical he that (know) state not could he it, possess to able Xe that else everything and gods the ofit. aware be not would possessed. sim the with truth some the speaking in contingency singled 3 (verses just the that seems also It statement. general this from Xenophanes 1 Verses justified. more to ofnature due this thesis, the interpretation according to which it also encompasses Xenophanes is course, Of future. and past the to both refers it i.e. time, of regardless

Sextus Empiricus comments on this fragment referring to two metaphors. According to the first, first, the to According metaphors. two to referring fragment this on comments Empiricus Sextus h phrase The Littera Antiqua - u. eohns xlds h psiiiy f nweg bsd n h eeet of element the on based knowledge of possibility the excludes Xenophanes out. - ge on the certainty of objective knowledge does not fit within the scope of the latter;the of scopethe within fit knowledgenot doesobjective of certainty the on ge 4) does not allow for the recognition of the thinker from Colophon as epistemicallyas Colophon from thinker the of recognition the for allow not does 4) 31

d. Math Adv. Even if someone did accidentally speak of what has been brought to pass, he pass, to brought been has what of speak accidentally did someone if Even

τετελεσμένον e shooting arrows at a target in the dark. It is possible that someone hits the target, but target, the hits someone that possible It is dark. the in target at a arrows shooting e τετελεσμένος

., VII, 52). According to the second metaphor, man's cognitive situation is is situation cognitive man's metaphor, second the to According 52). VII, ., trate the positions presented in this article. The opponents of an autocritical autocritical an of opponents The article. this in presented positions the trate

possessed knowledge is possible. More precisely,MoreXenophanesdid possessedknowledge is possible. if 32 -

o famn B 4 o o mk ay eto o excluding of mention any make not do 34 B fragment of 2 Thus, fragment B 34 states that either clea that either states 34 B fragment Thus,

εἰπών

infe what signifies dokos

suggests stating of what has been brought to completion completion to brought been has what of stating suggests nophanes talks about is not possible, or, if someone wassomeone if possible,or, not is about talks nophanes

is appointed toall 34,4).(B 270

has achieved achieved has Adv. Math Adv. ultaneous awareness that that truth is truth that that awareness ultaneous ., VIII, 325). Both metaphors are linked linked are metaphors Both 325). VIII, .,

τέλος t ht a' raiy s wrd of world a is reality man's that st for gold in a dark room. Even if he he if Even room. dark a in gold for

(fulfillment, result, state of of state result, (fulfillment, „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera r knowledge concerningr fcto o ti thesis this of ification n the mortals and and mortals the n

h general the t someone t

w w w . l i t a n t . e u about or gods the about speaks. Xenophanes which of things,the of any knowledge have would who anyone, be there will nor one, no is there that 1 verses as testimo clear complicated, more is issue the 3 However, questioned. 34, be 3) to and B need 2) would positions fr. opinion, of universality of the about light thesis the accept in also to that we Were Xenophanes. say can we now For opines. he that opines Xenophanes 4) knows, he that opines Xenophanes 3) opines, he that knows Xenophanes the (δόκος opinion from case, that In things. ( truth clear and certain of or knowledge, between distinction Xenophanes' cognition of perspective our cognizing of possibility the concerning knowledge, un be also could Reflection cognition. of The speaks. Xenophanes which possibility the precisely, more or of knowledge, (epistemic) objective of level things the concerns then, problem, others the about or gods the about knowledge clear have a be never will and one, no is there which to according principle the of range binding 33 have can who man to only suitable quite are these like "criticisms Yonezawa, to critiqued According he objects the among views his or himself include not did Xenophanes that asserts type this of argument simplest and first The cognition. of matters auto not allocritical, only as him treat who i.e. distinguished, epistemically be to Xenophanes consider who those, of arguments the on reflect critically opinions, certainnot knowledge. certain possessing to claim t to lays contrast in because rather he but knowledge, because not mortals, other from different is he that convinced), (only convinced is Xenophanes revision. to open not and objections no to rise that constXenophanes'view) perspective of (from the opinions their convinced are they Moreover, awareness. this possess not do they whereas opinion, is Colophon from thinker the that fact mortals other and him between difference the knowledge, certain possesses Xenophanes only that conviction the Rejecting awareness. epistemological of perspective the from equal considered be necessarily should mortals other and Xenophanes that mean d that reading, second the accept we If him. including everyone, for Xenophanes universal are Either 34. B fragment by encompassed of and distinguished epistemically 2 himself considered verse in mentioned things those to precisely,

Littera the from Xenophanes exclude to not or whether concerns article this in analyzed problem The Antiqua Dokos This position will be discussed in more detail later. Here, it would be worthwhile to worthwhile be would it Here, later. detail more in discussed be will position This

nies to negative dogmatism, as they suggest the definitive thesis (not only supposition) supposition) only (not thesis definitive the suggest they as dogmatism, negative to nies signifies an opinion, supposition, or conjecture that refers to all objects, or mo or objects, all to refers that conjecture or supposition, opinion, an signifies ) ), we can distinguish four different positions: 1) Xenophanes knows that he knows, 2) knows, he that knows Xenophanes 1) positions: different four distinguish can we ),

etkn n hs rbe fo te ee o meta of level the from problem this on dertaken -

contrary to them them to contrary

271 hem he is aware that his convictions are only are convictions his that aware is he hem - , oiin ) a epiil rjce by rejected explicitly was 1) position 4, -

aware that he is condemned to condemned is he that aware -

and allocritical, in regards to regards in allocritical, and itute finalknowledge,givingitute „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera οὔτις

se h ls above). list the (see

-

ἀνήρ 2 of fr. B 34 are 34 B fr. of 2 appears in the in appears nyone who will will who nyone τὸ

σαφές or , - objective objective e not oes δόκοι ), an ), re 33 d

w w w . l i t a n t . e u 35 is him, 34 including everyone, that aware is Xenophanes which to according accepted be could interpretation the moreover, it, have would Yonezawa as clear as is issue the think include not does he that clear most is it beliefs, false their criticizes and mortals' 'the men calls he when Therefore, beliefs. false those from exempt be surely must he So false. as them criticizes and mortals the of beliefs those share mortals' must include humankind asagenus, including Xenophanes himself. ( mortals 'the of beliefs false the "criticizes thesis:their supportto 14 B fragmentcitefrequentlyopinion, thosecondemned to of groupthe from him certain knowledge of Xenophanes is inadequate. dogmatically the against others of opinions false the setting opposition the opinion, my In o false of place the in views true introduce to i.e. others, with them replace to order in views particularcritique notdoes universality opinion.he Thus,showing the of in also but notions, se It cognition. of limitations and essence, source, the on reflection includes which reflection, epistemological of initiators the of one is Xenophanes views. their build people which upon foundations the reflection mea is but attitudes, or standpoints particular of automatic an assume critique a to not only refer not does criticism Xenophanes' does Moreover, autocriticism. of exclusion Allocriticism views. own his in confidence unshakable somethi criticizes someone that fact The far. too decidedly assertions.‛ and views own his in confidence unshakable revision. to open is which cognition, human of character doxal the reveal to rather but nes, Yonezawa 1989: 435. 1989: Yonezawa 435. 1989: Yonezawa Littera Antiqua o eape S Ynzw i a omn o ti famn wie ta Xenophanes that writes fragment this on comment a in Yonezawa S. example, For τὴν ἀλλ attem scholars, Certain

' σφετέρην οἱ

βροτοὶ

δ δοκέουσι ' ἐσθῆτα pting to reject the autocriticism of Xenophanes, i.e. to exclude to i.e. Xenophanes, of autocriticism the reject to pting ems that he is interested not only in the critique of erroneous of critique the in only not interested is he that ems

γεννᾶσθαι ἔχειν

φωνήν

θεούς οἱ

272 τε

βροτοί

δέμας ,

himself as one of 'the mortals.'‛ 'the of one as himself t o eonz ad ujc t critical to subject and recognize to nt '[.] I is iea sne te em 'the term the sense, literal its In [...]. )'

τε

34 g os o ma ta h has he that mean not does ng

hs ttmn ses o go to seems statement This „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

But does he not 35

I do not not do I

w w w . l i t a n t . e u is opines one what that suggestion without aninherent ‘opines’*...+, [...] case. the mu Xenophanes δόξα 37 8, 28). B 30; 1, and certainty true between contrast the as illustrated be also can distinction truth The mortals. of opinion of way the and truth) accompanies which persuasion, of way from thinker the for distinction and appear, not does 36 sta only he entirety; their in false or true are they that however, state, not does He such. as mortals of opinions ofviews thinker the from Colophon. assertionHis belongs to metalevel, the concerns asit the replac to not is aim The mortals. remaining the mortals. of those for as reflection objective of level same the characteristic on viewed be not should 14 is B in contained which assumption, or choice of be there will verb the addition, In nor gods.‛ the about knows who anyone seen has man no truth clear "the that states he which in 34, B fragment corres fully This fact. a stating observer critical a as rather but gods, the about truth the of possessor privileged a of position the from statements these make not does He states that only he convictions, false harbor mortals that assert not does Xenophanes 14, B fragment passages, ("[...]. 4 34, B and B in derivatives its with compared be verb The (body). figureand voice a haveand clothes own mortals that writes only Xenophanes passage. cited the from follow not does conclusion a Such is. really truth the what as convinced be himself o part the on truth this in appear not does passage. falsehood of category the as mortals, of beliefs false the critique encompa is i.e. opinion, to condemned

It is worth noting that in the extant fragments of Parmenides' poem, the category of falsehood also falsehood of category the poem, Parmenides' of fragments extant the in that noting worth is It n i cmetr t famn B 4 J H Lse rts "n ih o te neir tts f mortal of status inferior the of light "In writes: Lesher H. J. 34, B fragment to commentary his In Littera Antiqua

n amnds acut ad usqety n lt’) n mgt mgn that imagine might one Plato’s) in subsequently (and account Parmenides’ in 36 37

The arbitrary introduction of the concept of falsehood prejudges the possession of possession the prejudges falsehood of concept the of introduction arbitrary The they accept such accept such views, that supposed they such an gods.image ofthe

and and

δόκος st have contained an implicit element of error or falsity. But this does not appear to be be to appear not does this But falsity. or error of element implicit an contained have st δοκέω δόκος , therefore, like like therefore, , - Xnpae; noe h dsrbs eti cnitos s as must false as convictions certain describes who anyone Xenophanes; f

what follows follows what e ta mras abr uh pnos ta te ae odme to condemned are they that opinions, such harbor mortals that tes

should rather beshould translated rather as "suppose,‛ "assume,‛ "conjecture.‛or In

δ ' ἐπὶ

Elea is that of two paths of investigation: the way of truth (literally: the truth(literally: of way the investigation: of paths two of that is Elea

πᾶ σι -

δοκέω truth opposition the does neither

τέτυκται

35 (" 35 ssed by the term "the mortals.‛ Xenophanes does not does Xenophanes mortals.‛ "the term the by ssed , involves what one ‘takes’ to be the case, what one one what case, the be to ‘takes’ one what involves , ταῦτα 273 ‛). There is no mention of falsity in any of these of any in falsity of mention no is There ‛). e the false opinions of mortals with the true the with mortals of opinions false the e

δεδοξάσθω δοκέουσι δοκέω δοκέω

false.‛ Lesher 1992: 159. Lesher 1992: false.‛

, that gods are born, wear their wear born, are gods that , μὲν

used in this passage shouldpassage this in used –

presupposes some elementsome presupposes ἐοικότα

falsehood. The fundamental fundamental The falsehood. „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera eohns assertions Xenophanes' untrue certainty (D certainty untrue

τοῖς

δόκος ἐτύμοισι ponds with ponds

–

opinion opinion here in in here - K 28 B 28 K < ‛)

w w w . l i t a n t . e u n. 335, 15. 1989: Philippoussis one dokeousi 40 as one himself include not does 39 Xenophanes' that however, seems, It fragments. at world. godstheor of and the cognition certain to claims conclusive dogmatic, of arrogance the from speak, extant to so the humility, cognitive of of "promotion" the at basis aimed are statements the on matter this resolve som that case the be could it case; the be to have necessarily not does this opines, everyone that opines he if that fact the of 38 In world. the n is it as neutral, word the of use The 14). (B standpoint doxal certain a of acceptance the with in ties so and gods, the about views certain assuming or accepting word the both passages these mortals. those beyond oneself setting with connectedbe automatically to have not does mortals of opinions the of critique a that noting views. false these share not does as he set, YonezawafirmlyXenophanesmortals.thatfrom excludesacceptsthis himself the of one as himself perceives Xenophanes whether arises question The 14. B fragment in certainty, subjective which lays claim tofinality. their only is it but certainty, achieved have they error; of possibility opinio their truth. final in the Mortals, as treated be should opinions their believe they not, or consciously thus, himself, tha aware is Xenophanes that fact the todown boils knowledge,but possessesXenophanesalone while falsity, in stuck are mortals statement: " the in found be can reading this of confirmation A conjectures. and suppositions, opinions,

Of course, in reference to this assertion the accusation can be made that Xenophanes was not aware aware not was Xenophanes that made be can accusation the assertion this to reference in course, Of J. Philippoussis asserts that "Xenophanes is one of the of one is "Xenophanes that asserts Philippoussis J. "Therefore, when he calls men 'the mortals' and criticizes their false beliefs, it is most clear that he that clear most is it beliefs, false their criticizes and mortals' 'the men calls he when "Therefore, Littera Antiqua

of the of

The next issue that should be taken into account is the problem of c of problem the is account into taken be should that issue next The

The difference between Xenophanes and the mortals does not lie in the fact that the that fact the in lie not does mortals the and Xenophanes between difference The and and 38

pantes hl te otl ae nbe o elz ta ter pnos r sml opinions; simply are opinions their that realize to unable are mortals the while kaleousi δόκος rget 1 Xnpae wie ta Hmr n Hso acie certain ascribed Hesiod and Homer that writes Xenophanes 11 B fragment

who, as the first plural plural first the as who, ot connected with any particular assumption as to the nature of the gods or gods the of nature the to as assumption particular any with connected ot

; he is one of the of one is he ; δ eone (or even everyone except him) possesses truth. Of course, we are unable to unable are we course, Of truth. possesses him) except everyone even (or eone ' ἐπὶ

πᾶσι s ae eti o ter w cnitos n d nt di the admit not do and convictions own their of certain are ns,

39

of 'the mortals.'‛ Yonezawa 1989: 435. 1989: Yonezawa 'the mortals.'‛ of

The category of falsity w falsity of category The τέτυκται β ροτοί thnêtoi ekgenomestha

‛ 34,4).(B

and to whom, in frg 18, the 18, frg in whom, to eeyn i cnend o pno, nldn he including opinion, to condemned is everyone t 40

274 ἄνθρωποι It is also worth noting that Xenophanes uses in uses Xenophanes that noting worth also is It

indicates in frg 33, came from ‘earth and water.’‛ water.’‛ and ‘earth from came 33, frg in indicates

brotoi ἄνθρωποι as discussed earlier. Here, it is worth is it Here, earlier. discussed as Te is apas n h cnet of context the in appears first The .

and panta anthrôpoi

on the other hand, is more is hand, other the on

have not been revealed; he is he revealed; been not have „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

who, in frgs B 11 and 14, 14, and 11 B frgs in who, larifying least holding back back holding least οἱ

βροτοί

w w w . l i t a n t . e u views. his in present ratherweakly is tendency this even because Xenophanes, casetheof in shoul We 34. n. 11, 1988: Fikelberg men.‛ βροτοί as 19.3 in for tendency, a of use to Parmenides in tendency a of speak may n be not should which possibility of alternation the "If tendency. certain a with dealing are we that Finkelberg A. of view the with agree to reasonable seems it rather, categories; distincti rigorous some exists there that uphold to difficult is it Thus, ( true. was it that mortals that name, a be will everything that writes Parmenides ( people that statement that contains it as disputable, most the is 19 B Fragment people. are word they that reason sole the thefor people to of context the in belongs what of talk is there 19 hand, B (twice), 16 B 27, 1, B fragments In appear. not other do almost descriptions the On deceitful. are statements their two around wander they anything, know not do they certainty, critique. to 8, B 4, 6, subjected B 30, 1, B are Fragments that things of nature the on views concrete of context the in Parmenides in word The 3). n. 56, 1942: (Verdenius arbitrary quite distinction this calling 225 1997: Meijer and 2 n. 91, 1960: Owen by shared is view whereas 134), 1934: (Coxon philosophers‛ to but street, between 41 and gods the about truth clear the possess that statements his in emphasizes Xenophanes which cognition, on) (limitations nature finite the existe human of nature finite This gods. immortal the to contrast that state can we literature, archaic and to Homer reference In Xenophanes. in found be can distinction interesting more a that however, while one, seek to were we if though significance, between distinction the ( thought of terms in ( mortals to similar not is god that passage same the in adds Xenophanes not are people again Here men. and gods describe among greatest the Xenophanes is hand, who other god the a on mentions 23, B fragment In shameful. deceit and adultery, theft, is it passage, Home this In people. for embarrassing and shameful are which gods, the to traits

This problem also appears in interpreting the philosophy of Parmenides. He also distinguishes distinguishes also He Parmenides. of philosophy the interpreting in appears also problem This βροτοί Littera Antiqua δόκος

ad eid h hl a eti psto, hl pol ams b ntr consider nature by almost people while position, certain a hold who Hesiod and r βροτοί and and fo te esetv o ter ontv rfrne o h wrd Moreover, world. the to reference cognitive their of perspective the from d βροτοί

usually do. This undermines the basis of Coxon’s suggestion, improbable in itself, that by that itself, in improbable suggestion, Coxon’s of basis the undermines This do. usually

ἄνθρωποι is universal is

hs, h acp cran ojcue dsrbn reality. describing conjectures certain accept who those, and ἄνθρω

νόημα Parmenides systematically distinguishes between philosophers and ordinary ordinary and philosophers between distinguishes systematically Parmenides ἄνθρωποι

(B 34, 4) and that there never was, nor ever will be anyone who will who anyone be will ever nor was, never there that and 4) 34, (B βροτοί ποι ἄνθ

38 ) or body ( body or ) . Coxon states that "the term term "the that states Coxon . -

39, B 8, 51 8, B 39, ρωποι eglected, and consequently the difference is not purely incidental, we incidental, purely not is difference the consequently and eglected,

and appear in exactly the same association with the with association same the exactly in appear gv tig ter ae. n 8 38 8, B In names. their things gave ) ἄνθρωποι βροτοί d be all the more cautious in drawing long drawing in cautious more the all be d δέμας - 52, B 8, 60 8, B 52, ἄνθρωποι

everything else, about which Xenophanes speaks Xenophanes which about else, everything

). It is difficult to unambiguously judge whet unambiguously judge to difficult is It ). and 275 ἄνθρωποι

- ἄνθρωποι n eohns a a epr philosophical deeper a has Xenophanes in 61 speak about the fact that mortals do not have have not do mortals that fact the about speak 61 βροτοί ἄνθρωποι

in a more general sense (1.27, 16.2), but only only but 16.2), (1.27, sense general more a in -

βροτοί 227. Verdenius is of a d a of is Verdenius 227. rather signifies mankind as a whole, a as mankind signifies rather

infe toe wo r mra in mortal are who those, signifies -

headed, having only convictions, and convictions, only having headed, it not due to material convenience, a a convenience, material to due not it

βροτοί refers to mankind as a whole. This whole. a as mankind to refers

does not refer to the man the to refer not does nce in inseparably tied with tied inseparably in nce ) accepted in the conviction conviction the in accepted ) „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera βροτοί - 39, on the other hand, hand, other the on 39, θνητοῖσιν 41

does indeed appear indeed does

ἄνθ pluralistic outlook outlook pluralistic t s It - on between these these between on term conclusions conclusions term ifferent opinion, opinion, ifferent ρωποι es o me, to eems

), neither ),

polemic polemic - in - the her -

w w w . l i t a n t . e u 436 1989: Yonezawa poems.‛ his in expressed insight and thought his than more nothing means here 14)’ (line wisdom good ‘a or 12)’ (line wisdom ‘our all, the Hence, ‘us.’ among shared Xeno is accepted who people wisdom’ those out points ‘our ‘our’ word Xenophane although it, excluding of representative interpretation and wisdom’ his ‘our of center defend the in is wisdom to Xenophanes’ that think to natural Yonezawa, most is it "Therefore, S. writes: autocriticism, 56). 1992: (Lesher ‘expertise’ as word this translates Lesher H. J. whereas 19), 1983: Heitsch Kenntnis’ und Kunst (‘unsere meanings D 16 example 1953: Bowra 2; n. 117, 43 can they revision, and doubt bere always to subject are conclusion the and criterion the both as and, conclusion conjectural and relative a only provides criterion relative the But one). relative a it (be criterion a and 42 14). 2, (B strengthphysical than highly more valued be ( horsesand men of strength the than better is wisdom our that writes he 2 B fr. In elegies. Xenophanes' in found be can ( found been has best is what that compare ( betteris graspwhat to order convictionsin(juxtapose) critically to is procedure this of aspect syncritic the of purpose The found. been whil 38), B example, honey and zetetic own their of bounds the convictio within remain to continue will rest the better, is what find can general, in ( search who those, time in it, In 18. mortals, B to things all fragmentintimate gods did beginning the to from ‚not that states refer Xenophanes must we distinction, this clarify better To truth. complete o if possibility, a such admit not do who those, and convictions, only are views their that aware are who those, are there mentioned, was as however, mortals, the Among elegies. the in expressed setting or gods the to equal himself making at attempt an as expressed arrogance Such mortal. a not is who someone, 1 34, (B

J. Philippoussis writes: "The comparison, result of a critique, implies both a critic (a human obser (ahuman both a critic implies a critique, of result comparison, "The writes: Philippoussis J. term the translate scholars Some Littera Antiqua

- syncritic method, which boils down to a constant search for better solutions (the fig (the solutions better for search constant a to down boils which method, syncritic n h bss f r B 8 w cn a ta Xnpae rfr i hs tde t the to studies his in refers Xenophanes that say can we 18, B fr. of basis the On - ) I ti sne i i cer ht eohns ant osby hn o hmef as himself of think possibly cannot Xenophanes that clear is it sense, this In 2). ns, orns, those simply sanctified bytradition. - : 2; acvc 197 Marcovich 129; K: βροτοί - questioned and revised.‛ Phil revised.‛ and questioned l i te at ht hy ra ter ovcin a fnl wt te li to claim the with final, as convictions their treat they that fact the in nly

are divided into are

- 20; Guthrie 1962: 364), others as ‘knowledge,’ ‘wisdom,’ ‘Wissen’ (for (for ‘Wissen’ ‘wisdom,’ ‘knowledge,’ as others 364), 1962: Guthrie 20; ζητοῦντες ἡμετ

isl byn te otl de nt t l ft ih i piety his with fit all at not does mortals the beyond himself σοφίη e simultaneously rejecting the belief that the final truth has truth final the that belief the rejecting simultaneously e 8: 22). E. Heitsch, on the other hand, combines both of these these of both combines hand, other the on Heitsch, E. 22). 8: έρη ἄριστον ζητοῦντες

) find what is better‛ (D better‛ is what find ) used in his elegies as ‘art’ or ‘skill’ (for example Burnet 1930: 1930: Burnet example (for ‘skill’ or ‘art’ as elegies his in used σοφίη ippoussis 1989: 333. 1989: ippoussis ). , B 2, 11 2, B , 42 276

and those, who do not search. Only the former the search.Only not dowho those, and An expression of this zetetic this of expression An - phanes’ wisdom and his sense of values. After values. of sense his and wisdom phanes’ 3. Translating 437.

- 12) and that good (true) wisdom should wisdom (true) good that and 12) 43 ἄμεινον

The phrase "our wisdom‛ ( wisdom‛ "our phrase The - K B 18). Thus, we can say that say can we Thus, 18). B K ), not the dogmatic assertiondogmaticthe not ), σοφίη „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

s at wud ed to lead would ‘art’ as - syncritic attitude syncritic ἡμετέρη

ver) but s' s'

w w w . l i t a n t . e u - final, was Parmenides topic research interesting An for complete. and absolute, truth while revision, to open and relative, temporary, are seek who those ( discovered truths view, Xenophanes' In opinion. of way the and truth, accompanies which persuasion, of way the distinguishing investigation, of paths the of division 44 critical is 14) 2, wisdom. autocritical all) above (andmaybe including wisdom, (B wisdom (true) good This reflection. epistemological of foundation the upon built concer reflection critical in resulting humility, Cognitive socio towards directed is it as practical, and cognition) with tied problems undertakes practical a from which limitations, cognitive man's on reflection account into takes that wisdom critical certain opinion, my He and Homer had Xenophanes that image ‘ to difficult be translate would to possible be also would (it himself Xenophanes besides difficulti (all own his including 4), 34, (B opinions only are convictions human all that fact the of aware is but autocriticism), without (allocriticism opinions hold only mortals (better) convictions. new with replaced and revised, rejected, be may convictions hitherto their that aware are search who those as autocritical, and allocritical both therefore, is, searching the of criticism wisdo critical the all above means he wisdom,‛ "our about writes Xenophanes when Thus, mortals. for unattainable is knowledge ( held simultaneously the with method syncritic (syncritic) ( views their that aware are They theirinvestigations. of status the of awareXenophanes,certainly are whoand latter, the only ( seek it who addition, In better. is those, what find can they only are and truth, for look there persistently hand, other the On better. epistemically trad unreflectively from drawn often convictions, dogmatic their with satisfied are they because truth, seek not do who mortals are there hand, one the On attitude. zetetic critical divi the that indicates σοφίη

would be the comparison of Xenophanes' position w position Xenophanes' of be comparison the would

Xenophanes distinguishes those, who search who those, distinguishes Xenophanes Littera Antiqua to; n h cs o tee otl, ic te d nt erh te cno fn wa is what find cannot they search, not do they since mortals, these of case the in ition;

uabgosy ugss ht eohns s o ol rfrig o isl. This himself. to referring only not is Xenophanes that suggests unambiguously )

Therefore, Xenophanes is not a thinker convinced that only he knows, while all other all while knows, he only that convinced thinker a not is Xenophanes Therefore,

es in clarifying the phrase ‘our art,’ as it is difficult to say who would belong to this group this to belong would who say to difficult is it as art,’ ‘our phrase the clarifying in es perspective would serve the good of the polis. This critical wisdom is both theoretical (it (it theoretical both is wisdom critical This polis. the of good the serve would perspective 44

σοφίη truths open to revision, as they are obtai are they as revision, to open truths

in this fragment signifies a certain type of skill, or critical attitude connected with with connected attitude critical or skill, of type certain a signifies fragment this in

sion among mortals ( mortals among sion δόκοι ) are only opinions, and thus only temporary, relativetemporary, only thus and opinions, only are ) of m

from those, who do not, while Parmenides creates a a creates Parmenides while not, do who those, from βροτοί 277 ζητοῦντες – ith Parmenides' way of opinion. opinion. of way ithParmenides'

e facto de extending beyond the framework of this article article this of framework the beyond extending ) is drawn according to who possesses a possesses who to according drawn is ) ning man and the hierarchy of values, can be be can values, of hierarchy the and man ning ned as a result of applying the critical the applying of result a as ned t wih e isl blns This belongs. himself he which to ,

omtc asmto ta certain that assumption dogmatic)

siod, whom he critiques, in mind. In mind. in critiques, he whom siod, scil

. disclosed by the gods gods the by disclosed . ἡμετέρη „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

σοφίη o -

ζητοῦντες and autocriticism and a ‘y r’. It art’). ‘my as ’

- political good. political is probably is

- – accepted

B 18) b 18) B , who ), y

w w w . l i t a n t . e u Geschichte Philosophie‛ der W. von herausgeg. Kranz, 1 144. their thoughts reconstruct B opportunity anti critical, the accented strongly allo of combination op only has and truth certain and is what that awareness full the ἄμεινον with find) can seek, who those, only (because answers zetetic the of application the in expressed is cognitiveeffortlatter's the truth; forsearching of capablethose and final,convictions as their accept (uncritically) dogmatically who mortals among those are there However, combined). Littera AntiquaIBLIOGRAPHY

Gajda H.1925: Fränkel 1988: A. Finkelberg Vorsokratiker der Fragmente Die 1934: H. A. Coxon 1965: M. F. Cleve J.Burnet 1930: 1953: C.M. Bowra

should not be treated as that, which is which that, as treated be not should - to develop creatively instead ofstagnating. Krynicka J. 2007: Krynicka J.2007:

-

and autocriticism shows that Western philosophy already at its source its at already philosophy Western that shows autocriticism and Early Greek Philosophy Xenophanesstudien , 1 vol., The Hague:, 1vol., M. Nijhoff. Problems in GreekProblems Poetry in Parmenides: Between Material and Logical Monism Logical Materialand Between Parmenides: h Piooh o Parmenides of Philosophy The h Gat o pre of Giants The -

3 Band 70 (1), 1 70 Filozofia przedplatońska - dogmatic, and zetetic attitude, thanks to which it had the had it which to thanks attitude, zetetic and dogmatic, no a hs ipsto. eohns pan Xenophanes' disposition. his at inion , Zürich. - 14. 1985. Griechisch und Deutch von H. Diels, Diels, H. von Deutch und Griechisch 1985. , „Hermes‛ 60,174

278 , 4 - -

ohsi Gek hlspy A attem An Philosophy: Greek sophistic th ycii mto drce a fnig better finding at directed method syncritic ἄριστον

ed, London. , Oxford: Clarendon Press. Clarendon , Oxford:

, Warszawa. , since man cannot cognize the clear the cognize cannot man since , „lsia Qatry 2, 134 28, Quarterly‛ „Classical ,

- 192. „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

- . „Archiv für für „Archiv . rtcs a a as criticism

t to pt -

w w w . l i t a n t . e u and the DoxaThinking, Classical Studies‛3,1 Littera 3 iAntyczne XXXVII, Mediewistyczne‛ a Commentary Philosophica‛ 32,215 Antiqua ofTex Selection Philo and thePythagoreans DanielUniversity W.Graham, Cambridge:Cambridge Press. Majo the of Testimonies Selected and Parmenides logie. Neue Folge‛ 109,193 logie. Neue Folge‛ Guthrie W.K.C. 1962: W.K.C. Guthrie 2010: D.W. Graham 1968: O. Gigon ejr . . 1997: A. P. Meijer 1978: M. Marcovich 2004: M. Marcinkowska 1992: H. J. Lesher Lesher J. H.1978: 2014: D. Kubok 1964: E. J. Raven S., G. Kirk Heitsch E. 1983: 19 E. Heitsch , Basel und Stuttgart.

by J.H. Lesher, Toronto. by J.H. Lesher, ts , Cambridge: Cambridge Press. University , Cambridge University Press. 66: - Xenophanes: Die Fragmente Die Xenophanes: , Amsterdam. - 231 26. Xenophanes’ Scepticism Xenophanes’ Hezjod a Kolofonu z Ksenofanes pokora: pycha, Postęp, Xenophanes of Colophon: Fr Colophon: of Xenophanes e Usrn dr rehshn hlspi. o Hso bis Hesiod Von Philosophie. griechischen der Ursprung Der amnds eod h Gts Te iie eeain n Being, on Revelation Divine The Gates: the Beyond Parmenides a Wse ds Xenophanes des Wissen Das

Xenophanes on Drinking on Xenophanes The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Complete Fragments Fragments Complete The Philosophy: Greek Early of Texts The A History of Greek Philosophy Greek of History A

snfns Klfn o uzi poznaniu ludzkim o Kolofonu z Ksenofanes - 235 The Presocratic Philosophy. A Critical History with a a with History Critical A Philosophy. Presocratic The

Presocratics r

- 25. 279

, „Phronesis‛ 23,1 , München und Zürich. . Part I. Translated and Selected by by Selected and Translated I. Part . -

agments. A Text and Translation with Translation and Text A agments. Parties and Olympic Games Olympic and Parties , „Rheinisches Museum für für Museum „Rheinisches , , 1 vol., 1 ,

„Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera - The Earlier Presocratics Earlier The 21.

„Studia , ,

„Illinois „ , Folia Folia

w w w . l i t a n t . e u K allocriticism). and allocriticism of combination gener this from excluded himself believed he whether or autocriticism), (a knowledge certain and clear possess could in worth being, human is no that it believed Xenophanes context, whether considering this In knowledge. possessing of possibility the is article the own opinions. one's at criticismis of directed type others, of opinions the of criticism to refers first The autocriticism. (Diels 34 B broadly of perspective the Boudouris K.J.: By T.G. Rosenmeyer, New York. thought,Xenophanes’

EYWORDS Littera Antiqua Verdenius W.J. 1942: B.1960: Snell 1989: J. Philippoussis Owen G.E.L. 1960: The article analyzes extant fragments of Xenophanes of Col of Xenophanes of fragments extant analyzes article The 1989: S. Yonezawa Woleński J. 1992: : criticism;skepticism;knowledge; dogmatism; Xen - Kranz). Two types of criticism can be distinguished: allocriticism and and allocriticism distinguished: be can criticism of types Two Kranz).

Ionian Philosophy Ionian The Discovery of Mind. The Greek Origins ofEuropean Thought Origins TheGreek ofMind. The Discovery

in: Boudourisin: K.J.: A note onscepticism A note Eleatic Questions Eleatic Xenophanes: His Self His Xenophanes: - Parmen understood criticism, with special emphasis on fragment on emphasis special with criticism, understood h Gnos The , Athens.

ides. Some Comments onPoemides. His Summary Ionian Philosophy Ionian , „Classical 10,84 Quarterly‛ ooia ad eahscl atclrt of Particularity Metaphysical and eological

280 , „Kriterion‛ 3,18

- Consciousness as a Wise man and Fr. 34, Fr. and man Wise a as Consciousness

The object of criticism inof objectdiscussed The , Athens. - 19. ophanes of Colophon of ophanes „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

ophon's works from works ophon's , Groningen.

while the second second the while cluding himself, himself, cluding - 102. al rule (solely rule al

, transl.

in:

w w w . l i t a n t . e u Littera Antiqua reflection. epistemological and ontological of dariusz history the Elei z Parmenidesa przedsokratejskiej filozofii w peras others, among of, author the is He Katowice. in Silesia of University Kubok Dariusz [email protected] ,

urnl sre a Car f h Dprmn o Piooh a the at Philosophy of Department the of Chair as serves currently (2004). His main research interests include ancient philosophy and philosophy ancient include interests research main His (2004).

(1998) and and (1998) 281 rwa mniemania. i Prawda „Littera Antiqua” 10 (2015) (2015) 10 Antiqua” „Littera

Problem apeiron i apeiron Problem tdu filozofii Studium E - mail:

w w w . l i t a n t . e u