Anaximander and Others

Western Philosophy 1
Modules 3
Gerlie C. Ogatis- PUP Manila
 There were 3 great thinkers in Miletus, the first was Thales.
 His successors were Anaximander and Anaximenes
 Anaximander approx. 550, Anaximenes, perhaps 10 years later.
 Very tempting to think of their existence as a succession, it is
quite possible that one is a student of another.
 Thales has a single position, that water is the arche.
 Anaximander agreed with the Miletian worldview, with an arche
as the origin- things are coming from the arche and go back to it
once perished.
 Anaximander thinks critically, for him arche is not an ordinary
and limited water.
 For him, the arche is that which is indefinite, it is the first
principle of elements that things that are. Apeiron- indefinite,
unlimited
 Peiron means limit, something finite
 Anaximander is rejecting what seems to be Thales’ strength,
using his abilities to make observations about the world by
thinking that the core is water.
 Anaximander rejects it- a possible line of thought, perhaps
Anaximander thought that it made no sense to identify the arche
with any limited substance like water.
 The Greeks conceived of 4 elements in the world, earth, fire,
water, and air, all of them limited, observable substances.
 Anaximander is thinking, if the arche is responsible for everything else, it
must be fundamentally different from everything else.
 By everything else, it means everything in the world of becoming-
everything that we experience- it is finite.
 Anaximander may have reasoned, that if we want to preserve the concept
of the arche, then it is imperative to think of the arche that has no limits-
how could it be that water is the origin of everything, if I take a rock and
split it there is no water inside.
 How could any finite substance could do the job as the arche if it
has limits?
 Anaximander, at some point of his thinking, he is willing to
suspend his observation and elevate it to the level of reason.
 This leap to the unlimited is driven by the necessary
characteristics of being- of the arche.
 There was a disagreement for so long between empiricist and
rationalist- the former believe that it is through senses and the
other one is through reason.
 Anaximenes- he agreed with Anaximander- the notion of arche as one, it
unifies the many
 Anaximenes was also sympathetic to Anaximenes that water is not the
arche- but he critiqued Anaximander by saying that the notion of indefinite
is also unacceptable because it is also unintelligible
 From the same dilemma that Hesiod suffered from, that apeiron as the
arche is unintelligible
 Exercise- if you are thinking of something, it is only cognizable or
knowable if there is limit
 Thales was also wrong, for Anaximenes it is air
 Water was a good candidate for the arche, but not everything is a living thing, since
water as it seems is part of the living- that was the great flaw in Thales choice.
 By contrast, air is even more ubiquitous than water- it is everywhere- it can be in
living and non living things.
 This is how the argument progresses dialectically, with Anaximenes, air is the perfect
candidate- if there is such a thing as the core of reality then it must be responsible
and present in everything else
 Next thinker is Xenophanes of Colophon, he lived in a place close to Turkey, a
neighbor to the Miletians both geographically and conceptually.
 Xenophanes was a critique of Greek polytheism,
Xenophanes is a monotheist’- he states that god is one.
 Xenophanes says, all of God (all of him) sees, thinks and
hears- but without effort he shakes all things by the
thought of his mind
 One can feel the resonance of Miletians thought- being is
God, God lives all things, God is responsible
 The same way that water moves all things- but God for Xenophanes always remains in
the same place, like a being, God is motionless= Xenophanes is emphasizing here as God
being the origin of all things, God is fundamentally different from everything else, thus,
God does not move.
 
 In a peculiar sense- all of God sees, all of God hears- God is a unity, as a differentiated
use of unity- we operate in terms of parts and motion and between the relationship of our
bodily parts, but God is whole (a unity).
 
 Xenophanes’ God as the one is perfectly unified and that is why it is motionless, this very
familiar monotheist language is a reflection of Greeks quest for being- Xenophanes
emphasized the crucial point- the fundamental dissimilarity between God and everything
else.
 Phytagoras- is a very mysterious figure (around 570 to 500), went to
Samos- he seemed to run a cult that was highly secretive.

 Phytagoras- being for him is number, they suppose the elements of

 For Phytagoras, the One is the origin of all numbers- number in Greek is
arithmos- arithmetic (number and count)’when we count, what we are
doing is counting limits- I determine the limit of my count.
 I am identifying the limit and counting for unit- that is why the first
number is not 1 but 2- because the notion of number implies
multiplicity, it had to be more than one unit in order for it to be counted.
 With the presence of 1 number , I don’t count, I simply identify. I start
counting with the presence of 2.
 The One is responsible for all the counts, for Phythagoras- all things are
somehow composed by numbers, and numbers originated from the One.
 All things in the world can be analyzed arithmetically, we can count it as
unit.
 Number- its power can be felt in everything.
 All these thinkers- from Thales to Xenophanes- they are joined together from their quest of
unity, for being itself- there is a dialectical progression from beginning to end, but common to
them all is the quest for being.
 The crisis however is seen in the form of this question- how can being and becoming meet?
 How do we explain that a single substance can be responsible for all things?
 How could God move other things- how can an unmoved be able to move other things?
• Next lecture- a radical solution to this problem, Heraclitus and more radical is Parmenidean
view.
• Both of them diametrically opposed to each other, nonetheless, they shared a common view-
that there is something flawed in the Miletian picture- both will attack this problem= and their
solution is extremely interesting.