Anaxagoras and Metaphysics

Anaxagoras, evidently influenced by Parmenides' theories about the "what-is", proposed a metaphysical theory that said the entire cosmos was driven by the "nous," which refers to the intellect or the mind. His physical theories state that, basically, everything is in everything. Here he draws from the Milesians as to the ingredients of the cosmos, and says that whatever these ingredients are, they are all mixed up together. They cannot be separated, but the mixture is not homogenous. Thus, there is a bit of everything in everything, even if one thing is distinguishable from another. These distinguishable things are formed when the nous starts the mass swirling. So basically, the universe is like a giant oreo milkshake. The oreos are part of the milkshake, but distinguishable from the milkshake stuff, and the blender is the nous.

In his aphorisms, we can see that there are 3 undergirding principles to Anaxagoras's metaphysical theory:
1) There is no becoming or passing away.
2) Everything is in everything.
3) There is no smaller or larger.

In aphorism 17, Anaxagoras says that there is no coming to be or passing away, but that everything is either mixed together or dissociated. So apparently the laws of the conservation of mass and energy have been around since 500BCE (Sorry Antoine Lavoisier, he beatcha to it). I guess if he thinks that everything is one ginormous swirling vortex, it would be hard for something to separate out of it, and it would also not make sense for things to be able to be created or discarded, because everything that exists is IN that giant swirling vortex.

From this, it naturally follows that everything is in everything. He strangely distinguishes, in aphorism 11 that nous is not only the driving force behind everything, but is also IN some things (yet not in others).  Perhaps he means that not all objects are sentient or intellectual beings, thus, nous would not be present in things that are not humans, animals, or plants (he thinks plants have intellects too).

He has an interesting discourse on the topic of the smaller or the larger. I think what he's getting at is that the cosmos is so big that everything in relation to the cosmos looks to be equally miniscule. In aphorism 3, he explains this and says "...there is a smaller for what-is cannot not be, but also for the large there is always a larger. And the large is equal to the small in extent, but in relation to itself each thing is both large and small." This is where he's reminiscent of Parmenides because he realizes that the what-is can never not be, which directly influences statement #1 in the list above.