(c. 610—546 B.C.E.)
Anaximander was the author of the first surviving lines of Western
philosophy. He speculated and argued about "the Boundless" as the
origin of all that is. He also worked on the fields of what we now call
geography and biology. Moreover, Anaximander was the first speculative
astronomer. He originated the world-picture of the open universe, which
replaced the closed universe of the celestial vault.
His work will always remain truncated, like the mutilated and
decapitated statue that has been found at the market-place of Miletus and that
bears his name. Nevertheless, by what we know of him, we may say that he was
one of the greatest minds that ever lived. By speculating and arguing about the
"Boundless" he was the first metaphysician. By drawing a map of the
world he was the first geographer. But above all, by boldly speculating about
the universe he broke with the ancient image of the celestial vault and became
the discoverer of the Western world-picture.
1. Life and Sources
The history of written Greek philosophy starts with Anaximander of
Miletus in Asia Minor, a fellow-citizen of Thales. He was the first who dared
to write a treatise in prose, which has been called traditionally On Nature.
This book has been lost, although it probably was available in the library of
the Lyceum at the times of Aristotle and his successor Theophrastus. It is said
that Apollodorus, in the second century BCE, stumbled upon a copy of it,
perhaps in the famous library of Alexandria. Recently, evidence has appeared
that it was part of the collection of the library of Taormina in Sicily, where
a fragment of a catalogue has been found, on which Anaximander's name can be
read. Only one fragment of the book has come down to us, quoted by Simplicius
(after Theophrastus), in the sixth century AD. It is perhaps the most famous
and most discussed phrase in the history of philosophy.
We also know very little of Anaximander's life. He is said to have led a
mission that founded a colony called Apollonia on the coast of the Black Sea.
He also probably introduced the gnomon (a perpendicular sun-dial) into Greece
and erected one in Sparta. So he seems to have been a much-traveled man, which
is not astonishing, as the Milesians were known to be audacious sailors. It is
also reported that he displayed solemn manners and wore pompous garments. Most
of the information on Anaximander comes from Aristotle and his pupil
Theophrastus, whose book on the history of philosophy was used, excerpted, and
quoted by many other authors, the so-called doxographers, before it was lost.
Sometimes, in these texts words or expressions appear that can with some
certainty be ascribed to Anaximander himself. Relatively many testimonies,
approximately one third of them, have to do with astronomical and cosmological
questions. Hermann Diels and Walter Kranz have edited the doxography (A) and
the existing texts (B) of the Presocratic philosophers in Die Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker, Berlin 1951-19526. (A quotation like "DK 12A17" means:
"Diels/Kranz, Anaximander, doxographical report no.17").
2. The "Boundless" as Principle
According to Aristotle and Theophrastus, the first Greek philosophers
were looking for the "origin" or "principle" (the Greek
word "archê" has both meanings) of all things. Anaximander is said to
have identified it with "the Boundless" or "the Unlimited"
(Greek: "apeiron," that is, "that which has no
boundaries"). Already in ancient times, it is complained that Anaximander
did not explain what he meant by "the Boundless." More recently,
authors have disputed whether the Boundless should be interpreted as spatially
or temporarily without limits, or perhaps as that which has no qualifications,
or as that which is inexhaustible. Some scholars have even defended the meaning
"that which is not experienced," by relating the Greek word
"apeiron" not to "peras" ("boundary,"
"limit"), but to "perao" ("to experience,"
"to apperceive"). The suggestion, however, is almost irresistible
that Greek philosophy, by making the Boundless into the principle of all
things, has started on a high level of abstraction. On the other hand, some
have pointed out that this use of "apeiron" is atypical for Greek
thought, which was occupied with limit, symmetry and harmony. The Pythagoreans placed
the boundless (the "apeiron") on the list of negative things, and for
Aristotle, too, perfection became aligned with limit (Greek:
"peras"), and thus "apeiron" with imperfection. Therefore,
some authors suspect eastern (Iranian) influence on Anaximander's ideas.
3. The Arguments Regarding the Boundless
It seems that Anaximander not only put forward the thesis that the
Boundless is the principle, but also tried to argue for it. We might say that
he was the first who made use of philosophical arguments. Anaximander's
arguments have come down to us in the disguise of Aristotelian jargon.
Therefore, any reconstruction of the arguments used by the Milesian must remain
conjectural. Verbatim reconstruction is of course impossible. Nevertheless, the
data, provided they are handled with care, allow us to catch glimpses of what
the arguments of Anaximander must have looked like. The important thing is,
however, that he did not just utter apodictic statements, but also tried to
give arguments. This is what makes him the first philosopher.
a. The Boundless has No Origin
Aristotle reports a curious argument, which probably goes back to
Anaximander, in which it is argued that the Boundless has no origin, because it
is itself the origin. We would say that it looks more like a string of
associations and word-plays than like a formal argument. It runs as follows:
"Everything has an origin or is an origin. The Boundless has no origin.
For then it would have a limit. Moreover, it is both unborn and immortal, being
a kind of origin. For that which has become has also, necessarily, an end, and
there is a termination to every process of destruction" (Physics 203b6-10,
DK 12A15). The Greeks were familiar with the idea of the immortal Homeric gods.
Anaximander added two distinctive features to the concept of divinity: his
Boundless is an impersonal something (or "nature," the Greek word is
"phusis"), and it is not only immortal but also unborn. However,
perhaps not Anaximander, but Thales
should be credited with this new idea. Diogenes Laërtius ascribes to Thales the aphorism: "What is the
divine? That which has no origin and no end" (DK 11A1 (36)). Similar
arguments, within different contexts, are used by Melissus (DK 30B2[9]) and
Plato (Phaedrus 245d1-6).
b. The Origin Must be Boundless
Several sources give another argument which is somehow the other way
round and answers the question of why the origin should be boundless. In
Aristotle's version, it runs like this: "(The belief that there is
something Boundless stems from) the idea that only then genesis and decay will
never stop, when that from which is taken what has been generated, is
boundless" (Physics 203b18-20, DK 12A15, other versions in DK12A14 and
12A17). In this argument, the Boundless seems to be associated with an
inexhaustible source. Obviously, it is taken for granted that "genesis and
decay will never stop," and the Boundless has to guarantee the ongoing of
the process, like an ever-floating fountain.
c. The "Long Since" Argument
A third argument is relatively long and somewhat strange. It turns on
one key word (in Greek: "êdê"), which is here translated with
"long since." It is reproduced by Aristotle: "Some make this
(namely, that which is additional to the elements) the Boundless, but not air
or water, lest the others should be destroyed by one of them, being boundless;
for they are opposite to one another (the air, for instance, is cold, the water
wet, and the fire hot). If any of them should be boundless, it would long since
have destroyed the others; but now there is, they say, something other from
which they are all generated" (Physics 204b25-29, DK 12A16).
This is not only virtually the same argument as used by Plato in his
Phaedo (72a12-b5), but even more interesting is that it was used almost 2500
years later by Friedrich Nietzsche in his attempts to prove his thesis of the
Eternal Recurrence: "If the world had a goal, it would have been reached.
If there were for it some unintended final state, this also must have been
reached. If it were at all capable of a pausing and becoming fixed, if it were
capable of "being," if in the whole course of its becoming it
possessed even for a moment this capability of "being," then again
all becoming would long since have come
to an end." Nietzsche wrote these words in his notebook in 1885, but already
in Die Philosophie im tragischen Zeitalter der Griechen (1873), which was not published during his
lifetime, he mentioned the argument and credited Anaximander with it.
4. The Fragment
The only existing fragment of Anaximander's book (DK 12B1) is surrounded
by all kinds of questions. The ancient Greeks did not use quotation marks, so
that we cannot be sure where Simplicius, who has handed down the text to us, is
still paraphrasing Anaximander and where he begins to quote him. The text is
cast in indirect speech, even the part which most authors agree is a real
quotation. One important word of the text ("allêlois," here
translated by "upon one another") is missing in some manuscripts. As
regards the interpretation of the fragment, it is heavily disputed whether it
means to refer to Anaximander's principle, the Boundless, or not. The Greek
original has relative pronouns in the plural (here rendered by
"whence" and "thence"), which makes it difficult to relate
them to the Boundless. However, Simplicius' impression that it is written in rather
poetic words has been repeated in several ways by many authors. Therefore, we
offer a translation, in which some poetic features of the original, such as
chiasmus and alliteration have been imitated:
“Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction
happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence
upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime
-
In conformity with the ordinance
of Time.”
In the fourth and fifth line a more fluent translation is given for what
is usually rendered rather cryptic by something like "giving justice and
reparation to one another for their injustice."
We may distinguish roughly two lines of interpretation, which may be
labeled the "horizontal" and the "vertical." The horizontal
interpretation holds that in the fragment nothing is said about the relation of
the things to the Boundless, whereas the vertical interpretation maintains that
the fragment describes the relationship of the things to the Boundless. The
upholders of the horizontal interpretation usually do not deny that Anaximander
taught that all things are generated from the Boundless, but they simply hold
that this is not what is said in the fragment. They argue that the fragment
describes the battle between the elements (or of things in general), which
accounts for the origin and destruction of things. The most obvious difficulty,
however, for this "horizontal" interpretation is that it implies two
cycles of becoming and decay: one from and into the Boundless, and the other
caused by the mutual give and take of the elements or things in general. In
other words, in the "horizontal" interpretation the Boundless is
superfluous. This is the strongest argument in favor of the
"vertical" interpretation, which holds that the fragment refers to
the Boundless, notwithstanding the plural relative pronouns. According to the
"vertical" interpretation, then, the Boundless should be regarded not
only as the ever-flowing fountain from which everything ultimately springs, but
also as the yawning abyss (as some say, comparable with Hesiod's
"Chaos") into which everything ultimately perishes.
The suggestion has been raised that Anaximander's formula in the first
two lines of the fragment should have been the model for Aristotle's definition
of the "principle" (Greek: "archê") of all things in
Metaphysics 983b8. There is some sense
in this suggestion. For what could be more natural for Aristotle than to borrow
his definition of the notion of "archê," which he uses to indicate
the principle of the first presocratic philosophers, from Anaximander, the one
who introduced the notion?
It is certainly important that we possess one text from Anaximander's
book. On the other hand, we must recognize that we know hardly anything of its
original context, as the rest of the book has been lost. We do not know from
which part of his book it is, nor whether it is a text the author himself
thought crucial or just a line that caught one reader's attention as an example
of Anaximander's poetic writing style. The danger exists that we are tempted to
use this stray text - beautiful and mysterious as it is - in order to produce
all kinds of profound interpretations that are hard to verify. Perhaps a better
way of understanding what Anaximander has to say is to study carefully the
doxography, which goes back to people like Aristotle and Theophrastus, who
probably have had Anaximander's book before their eyes, and who tried to
reformulate what they thought were its central claims.
5. The Origin of the Cosmos
The Boundless seems to have played a role in Anaximander's account of
the origin of the cosmos. Its eternal movement is said to have caused the
origin of the heavens. Elsewhere, it is said that "all the heavens and the
worlds within them" have sprung from "some boundless nature." A
part of this process is described in rather poetic language, full of images,
which seems to be idiosyncratic for Anaximander: "a germ, pregnant with
hot and cold, was separated [or: separated itself] off from the eternal,
whereupon out of this germ a sphere of fire grew around the vapor that
surrounds the earth, like a bark round a tree" (DK 12A10). Subsequently,
the sphere of fire is said to have fallen apart into several rings, and this
event was the origin of sun, moon, and stars. There are authors who have, quite
anachronistically, seen here a kind of foreshadowing of the Kant-Laplace theory
of the origin of the solar system. Some sources even mention innumerable worlds
(in time and/or in space), which looks like a plausible consequence of the
Boundless as principle. But this is presumably a later theory, incorrectly read
back into Anaximander.
No comments:
Post a Comment