Final answer:
Super-essentiality does not necessarily conflict with Anaxagoras's views, as his concept of nous is a type of super-essential principle that organizes the cosmos. Exploring such fundamental principles was precisely in line with Anaxagorean and pre-Socratic thought, which sought to understand the universe through rational means rather than mythology.
Step-by-step explanation:
Super-essentiality, the idea that certain concepts or entities are absolutely fundamental and necessary, does not inherently preclude compatibility with Anaxagoras' philosophical views. Anaxagoras himself posited the concept of nous (mind) as the organizing principle that initiates motion and order in the cosmos.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles were both substance pluralists, but their theories differ in fundamental ways. While Empedocles believed in four basic substances combined and recombined by love and strife, Anaxagoras believed in nous as a singular, omnipotent force that set the universe into motion. Therefore, if super-essentiality refers to a fundamental principle like Anaxagoras's nous, these ideas might indeed be compatible. However, if it refers to multiple substances or a different organizing principle, it might not align perfectly with his views.
Anaxagoras's ideas were groundbreaking for his time. By attributing the workings of the universe to a non-divine, rational principle, he set the stage for later scientific and philosophical inquiries. Despite facing accusations of blasphemy and being threatened with execution, his commitment to explaining the natural world without resorting to mythology challenged and expanded the intellectual horizons of his peers and successors alike.