Anaximander

The doxography for Anaximander’s account of the rings of the sky gives proportions for them that are discrepant. So a widely accepted hypothesis proposes that, since the circles of the celestial bodies are compared to wheels, we should add the thickness of their ‘rims’ to the measurements for the celestial rings. This paper proposes an entirely different hypothesis which avoids this awkward expedient by suggesting that there is a ‘geometrical’ reading of the numerical data. The discrepancies can then be explained by there being two different methods for calculating the circumference of the circles.

The word arché, by which Jesus is in Col 1:18 described, is most often interpreted and translated as “beginning”. There are however hints that arché also bears connotations to arché defined as philosophical principle. It is supported by: 1) depiction of Jesus in Col 1:15-20 in categories appropriate for philosophical arché; 2) invocation in Col 2:8 of „philosophy according to the elements of the world” as a negative alternative for Christ; 3) the fact that, Paul possessed at minimum
elementary knowledge of Greek philosophy.

Was Parmenides a distinguished ‘astronomer’ and ‘biologist’ other than the great ‘philosopher’ he has been unanimously considered from the times of Plato onwards? Many admirers of the ‘philosopher’ are not just refractory to consider this possibility: they simply ignore what Parmenides was able to discover in the additional domains I have just mentioned. But he was great as an ‘astronomer’ and a ‘biologist’ too, probably not less great than as a ‘philosopher’.The aim of this paper is to supply the basic information about Parmenides' achievements in these domains (thus about the discovery of the sphericity of earth as well as the physiological bases of homosexuality, plus a number of further areas of investigation), that were of the highest order, I presume.    < >
This paper is part of a special issue in honour of Professor A.P.D. Mourelatos.

Bien que les notions de φιλία et δίκη n’apparaissent pas conjointement dans les fragments présocratiques, elles relèvent de champs similaires, qu’il s’agisse de la nécessité cosmique ou d’une forme conditionnelle de nécessité. Mais, tandis que l’amitié cosmique d’Empédocle (la Φιλότης) est conçue comme une force d’unification et d’homogénéisation des contrariétés, le modèle développé par Démocrite des rapports entre amis se fonde sur l’attraction des semblables – contrairement à ce qui pouvait d’abord sembler ressortir des analyses aristotéliciennes. Le concept de justice, initialement relatif aux lois de l’univers et de l’être (avec Anaximandre, Héraclite et Parménide), s’élabore progressivement via la question de la rétribution proportionnelle et de la mesure, mais sans s’élever jusqu’à une dimension vraiment délibérative, puisque le choix se restreint à consentir ou non à la nécessité.

Sokrates öncesi filozofların doğayı açıklama çabası varlık, oluş, değişim sorunları etrafında döner. Bu sorunlara önerilen çözümlerde Sokrates öncesi filozofların gözettiği temel izlek ise doğanın birlikteliğini, biraradalığını diğer bir deyişle doğanın dayanışmasını sağlamaktır. Bu makalede, dayanışma sorununun Sokrates öncesi doğa filozofları için varlık, oluşum, değişim sorunlarından daha belirleyici olduğu ileri sürülmekte, bu sorulara önerilen çözümlerin dayanışma sorunuyla doğrudan ilişkisi serimlenmektedir.
Pre-Socratic philosophers have engaged in the problems of being, becoming, and change in nature. Pre-Socratics have followed up the principle of solidarity through their explanations of the nature. In this article, it is claimed that PreSocratics have considered the problem of the solidarity prior to the problems of being, becoming, and change, and then it is argued how the problem of solidarity is related to the problems of being, becoming, and change.

This article marks the first in a series in which the author will publish famous phrases attributed to ancient Greek philosophers. Afier a brief introduction in wich details of the proposed study are given, the anide examines phrases by Thales, Anaximandre and Anaximenes. I. INTRODUCCIÓN Pretendemos con este estudio iniciar la publicación de las frases más célebres pronunciadas por los filósofos griegos. Una primera dificultad surge a la hora de titular el estudio por cuanto que no es fácil expresar con un vocablo concreto el concepto que vamos a desarrollar. En efecto, son varios los términos que se aplican para referirse a aquellas expresiones atribuidas a personajes históricos o a la sabiduría popular y que resumen un pensamiento o una verdad. Esa dificultad también se encuentra cuan-1 Este estudio forma parte del Proyecto de Investigación «Selección temática de textos griegos», que ha contado con una subvención de la Universidad de La Laguna, siendo su Director el Dr. D. MARCOS MARTÍNEZ HERNÁNDEZ.

This study tells about Anaximander's theory of Apeiron and as well as his life and his philosophical background. Anaximander is said to be a younger contemporary of Thales, who also sought for the first material principle; he was a disciple and successor of Thales and philosophized in dialogue with him. He was not mentioned until the time of Aristotle. Unlike Thales, Anaximander wrote a philosophical work, entitled On Nature; unfortunately, neither this nor any of his other works has survived. The information about his philosophy came from summaries of it by other writers, especially Aristotle and Theophrastus. Anaximander was said to have drawn the first map of the inhabited world on a tablet, which was a marvel in his day (Agathemerus I, 1)

This a paper given in Edinburgh in May 2018 which discusses some thoughts on Andre Laks's recent piece on Presocratic ethics. The paper explores several strands but takes up Heraclitus and his B45 as a particular focus, and the reading of Gabor Betegh. Little is strikingly original here but certain thoughts are brought together that might prove interesting.

Η ζωή του
Ο Αναξίμανδρος γεννήθηκε στη Μίλητο το 610 π. Χ. περίπου και πέθανε λίγο μετά το 546 π. Χ. Σύμφωνα με τον Διογένη Λαέρτιο, ήταν μαθητής του Θαλή και άμεσος συνεχιστής του έργου του. Για την ζωή του ξέρουμε πολύ λίγα. Σύμφωνα με τον Αιλιανό ηγήθηκε της αποστολής της Μίλητου στην ίδρυση αποικίας στην Απολλωνία, ενώ σύμφωνα με τον Κικέρωνα προειδοποίησε τους Σπαρτιάτες να εγκαταλείψουν προσωρινά την Σπάρτη προβλέποντας τον σεισμό που έγινε λίγο μετά καταστρέφοντας οικίες και ιερά. Γενικώς όλες οι πληροφορίες που αφορούν τον Αναξίμανδρο είναι δευτερογενείς, συνήθως από μεταγενέστερους σχολιαστές οι οποίοι όμως είχαν ανά χείρας το βιβλίο του, άρα οι πληροφορίες τους είναι κατά πάσα πιθανότητα έγκυρες, ειδικά αν αναλογιστούμε το γεγονός ότι ταυτίζονται μεταξύ τους στο περιεχόμενο.

İyonya doğayı anlama, görünenin ve değişenin ardında yatan değişmeyen temel ilkenin, unsurun ne olduğunun konusunda rasyonel bir tutumun, girişimin ortaya konduğu önemli bir merkezdi. Ancak bu girişimin katı anlamda mitostan logosa keskin bir geçiş olduğu, bu girişimin ilk öncüleri olan Milet Okulu filozoflarının ortaya koydukları tavrın "bilimselliği" ile ilgili tartışalar mevcuttur. Yunan felsefesinin deneyci, pozitivist ve bu anlamda bilimsel olduğunu iddia eden, bu dönem filozoflarını çağdaş anlamda ilk doğa bilginleri olarak görmeye çalışan örneğin bir Burnet ve Gomperz'in temsil ettikleri teze, geçen yüzyılın ikinci çeyreğinden bu yana içlerinde yine örneğin Jaeger ve Cornford'un bulunduğu bir başka araştırıcılar grubu ciddi itirazlar yöneltmişlerdir. 1 Bu tartışmaların yanına eklenebilecek ve burada üzerine tartışılacak bir diğer konu ise Miletli filozofların kendilerine araştırma konusu edindikleri arkhe'nin monistik anlamda bir ilk neden, bir ilke olup olmadığıdır. Arkhe'nin birliği ya da çokluğu üzerine ayrım ve tartışmalar çok eskiden beri mevcudiyetini korumakta. Aristoteles ilk filozofları, bütün şeylerin tek bir arkhe'si olduğuna inanlar ve birden fazla arkhe olduğunu savunanlar diye ikiye ayırmakta, ayrıca yine Hippokrates İnsan Doğası Üzerine adlı eserinde "Var olan her şeyin bir olduğunu ve bunun hem bir tek hem de her şey olduğunu söylüyorlar…" 2 şeklinde eleştirisini yöneltmekte. Her ne kadar bu ifadeler doğrudan ya da sadece Miletli filozofları kastetmese de arkhe'nin birliği ya da çokluğu tartışmasına dikkat çekmesi açısından önem teşkil etmektedir. Bu noktada üzerinde durulacak olan Miletli filozof Anaksimandros ve onun arkhe'si Apeiron'dur.

Sundials in Roman and Byzantine Mosaics (1st – 9th Century AD). A scientific monograph. The sundials on ancient mosaics have not been the subject of scientific studies so far. The author has gathered together  in this  publication  the sundials  already known (Torre Anunzaiata, Sarsina, Trier, Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Antioch and Brading; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9) and those which have  not  previously  been  identified.  Thanks  to  the author’s  new  identifcations,  the  catalogue  has  been enlarged  by  six  new  sundials (Grand,Tarsus, Antiochia – interpreted by H. Pamir; Figs.  3, 6,  8, and 10. Tayibat al-Imam, Jerusalem and Umm al-Rasas (Sebastis); Figs. 10, 11, 12) and three monumental gnomes-columns with multiple functions that were used as monumental sundials [Madaba (Jerusalem), Umm al-Rasas (Kastron Mefaa) and Rome (Jerusalem); Figs. 13–15]. In addition, recognizing fully John H. Humphrey’s  interpretations,  the  author  enriches  the catalogue  by  eight  ancient  mosaic  representations  of obelisks in  circuses (Lyon, Barcelona, Volubilis, Piazza Armerina - two mosaics, Girona, Carthage and Gafsa; Figs.  16–23).  They  performed the roles of monumental sundials. In this way, the catalogue includes  twenty-three  mosaics with  the representations of sundials. They come from the Western and Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire. The first mosaic is dated to the beginning of the 1st century AD and the last dates to the 9th century AD. The author, after  a  short  description  of each monument,  summarizes the issue discussing the role of sundials in Roman and Byzantine society, their complex signifcance and symbolic dificult linked with the progress of time on which nature and human life are dependent. See Pdf : https://www.academia.edu/22653583/

Proof.

Abstract
Nietzsche argued that the Greeks were in possessions of every theoretical, mathematical, logical, and technological antecedent for the development of what could be modern science. But if they had all these necessary prerequisites what else could they have needed? Not only had the ancient Greeks no religious world-view antagonistic to scientific inquiry, they also lacked the Judeo-Christian promissory ideal of salvation in a future life (after death). Subsequently, when Greek culture had been irretrievably lost, what Nietzsche regarded as the "decadent" Socratic ideal of reason ultimately and in connection with the preludes of religion and alchemy developed into modern science and its attendant ideal of progress and redemption not in the afterlife but in "the future."

This book presents a new account of Thales based on the idea that Acheloios, a deity equated with water in the ancient Greek world and found in Miletos during Thales’ life, was the most important cultic deity influencing the thinker, profoundly shaping his philosophical worldview. In doing so, it also weighs in on the metaphysical and epistemological dichotomy that seemingly underlies all academia—the antithesis of the methodological postulate of Marxian dialectical materialism vis-à-vis the Platonic idea of fundamentally real transcendental forms. Unbeknownst to many scholars, there are various Neo-Marxian thinkers that position the origin of coinage as the pivotal technological development giving rise to impersonal “metaphysical cosmology,” suggesting that the value of money was more-or-less projected back onto the cosmos in the form of “ideal substances.” While the arguments are incredibly sophisticated and persuasive, their conclusions (either stated or implied) are rather difficult to swallow: the self is merely an illusion, abstract ideas of an ultimate source of value, like God or the Good, are totally delusional (as is the soul, and presumably any notion of inherent human dignity), and essentially everything is reducible to mankind’s enslavement to commodities and the notion of our own objectified labor, which is the true source of all value according to Marx. Not only is this an alarming belief that many scholars (consciously or unconsciously) have adopted, since essentially any action could be “justified,” it is also demonstrably false, since it rests on a misunderstanding of Thales and misconception of philosophy as such.

My work rectifies that misunderstanding. In an important sense, it is an attempt at redefining philosophy as a “love of wisdom,” which I argue was accurate even in the Presocratic setting, and it uses the influence of Acheloios on Thales to do so. Throughout its pages I explore the etymology and historical uses of the word ὔδωρ, examine the archaeological context of 7th to 6th century Miletos, consider various aquatic myths Thales encountered, and highlight a hitherto overlooked tradition stemming from Thales and influencing such thinkers as Pythagoras, Empedokles, and Hippo, which culminates in a completely new reading of Plato’s Phaedrus, a dialogue in which Plato responds to the exact type of thinking employed by the Neo-Marxians. It is there that we find Socrates and Phaedrus surrounded by the iconography of Acheloios and the nymphs, all while they lie reclined like river gods (the sinews of Acheloios) on the banks of the Ilisos. And it is in that dialogue that Plato defines philosophy as a love of wisdom—the beholding of a multiplicity of hermeneutical frameworks—and alludes to the fact that it began with the sacrifice of Acheloios, the initial philosophical maneuver which he attributes to Thales. The book ends with a threefold rejoinder to the Neo-Marxian school, corresponding to the λόγος, μῦθος, and ἔργον of Acheloios. It turns out that, (1) the λόγος of Acheloios contained the ideal preconditions conducive to an abstraction to a more refined philosophical worldview in which divine water operated as the One among the Many; (2) the μῦθος of Acheloios actually encouraged the application of the notion of sacrifice to Acheloios himself (thus revealing his essence as divine water); and, (3), the ἔργον of Acheloios, in which he kneels in assent to sacrifice, is found on a coin that was probably designed by Thales. In the final analysis, I suggest that the tradition of Acheloios is reflective of a greater philosophical truth, and that by following Thales’ lead, we transcend the Marxian hermeneutic of doubt and reorient ourselves toward the οὐσια ὄντως οὖσα.

Praised for its reliance on observation rather than myth, the Milesian school signals the dawn of science in the West. Whereas Hesiod appeals to the long ago and far away to explain the here and now, Thales and his cohorts do the reverse—and in this reversal, we are their thankful, even faithful heirs. But with Hesiod not everything is myth and hearsay. Indeed, Hesiod singles himself out by name as the bearer of a powerfully poetic and distinctly human wisdom that he consistently contrasts with the divine wisdom of Zeus. Hesiod’s distinction between human and divine wisdom thus forms a crucial premise of his worldview, a premise not conditioned on the myths that surround it and thus on the question of whether they are experientially grounded. In the following paper, I treat the origins of the Milesian school in the figures of Thales and Anaximander and argue that this school’s attempt to bridge the divide between divine and human wisdom ignores—to its detriment—the ambiguities characteristic of human wisdom. I argue this emerges specifically in a tension between Thales’ political wisdom and natural philosophy, and later in a tension between Anaximander’s cosmology and cosmogony. I close with some comment on how Heraclitus appears to be the first thinker to confront this essential premise, inasmuch as his attempt to bridge the divide between divine and human wisdom always keeps one eye on the ambiguities that pervade human experience.

This article adresses the heroon of Thales in the agora of Miletos, so far only literarily attested (§§ IV, VII). The sage was worshiped as secondary founder, having the status of a 'cultural hero', an age-old Indo-European concept. Graves of founders are typically placed on the agora (§ V), but not those of the mythical founders of Miletos, Asterios, Miletos and Kelados or Ionian Neileos (§ VI). Of the intramural heroa excavated in Miletos none can claim to be that of Thales: Neither 'Heroon I (the grave of the Macedonian general Dokimos?), II and III' (§ I), nor the 'Ehrengrab' in the courtyard of the Hellenistic bouleuterion, which is most likely an altar (§ II). Instead, a thesauros in the assembly hall may have served as a heroon (§ III), and the philosopher Anaximander may also have received cult in the bouleuterion (§ VIII). Finally, a chamber tomb slightly west of the bouleuterion is discussed (§ IX). At the end some general remarks on Greek hero cults are added, stressing the common concept of the immortal divine soul, again an Indo-European heritage, manifest for example in the apotheosis of the Hittite kings as well as that of the Roman emperors (§ X).

This study of Greek time before Aristotle’s philosophy starts with a commentary on his first text, the Protrepticus. We shall see two distinct forms of time emerge: one initiatory, circular and Platonic in inspiration, the other its diametrical opposite, advanced by Aristotle. We shall explore this dichotomy through a return to poetic conceptions. The Tragedians will give us an initial outline of the notion of time in the Greek world (Fate); we shall then turn to Homer in order to better grasp the complex relations between time and the religious sphere (the Hero); the work of the great theologian Hesiod will confirm this initiatory vision, later set out in remarkable fashion by Nietzsche (Myths); we shall then dive deep into Pythagoreanism to complete our account (Mysteries). Having understood this current of thought, powerfully influenced by the Iranian theogony, we shall be able to discern its clear differences from the so-called “Ionian” current, and thus to move away from Plato (Ideology). Lastly, we shall return to the early Ionian thinkers Thales and Anaximander to analyse whether this really was the vision of the world that Aristotle adopted in developing the first model of time (Science). In the second volume we shall see the return of the thought of the theologoi within the Aristotelian corpus itself, and will question our distinction between the being and existence of time.

Régis Laurent is a philosopher and member of the association Kairos Kai logos (Centre for the study of ancient philosophy). This book is the first part of his doctoral thesis in philosophy, undertaken under the aegis of three French universities (Grenoble, Clermont-Ferrand and Rennes). In addition to his philosophical training, the author is also qualified to Masters level in linguistics and in general psychology, and studied theology at the Thomist University in Paris (ULSH) and at the CEJ of the EHESS.
Trad Trista SELOUS of the book of Régis LAURENT : METAPHYSIQUE DU TEMPS CHEZ ARISTOTE - I - Recherches historiques sur les conceptions mythologiques
et astronomiques précédant la philosophie aristotélicienne, villegagnons-plaisance, 2009/04/16, Paris, www.editions-villegagnons.com

NB/ cultura CULTURA PRESOCRATICA ha preparato la strada a un volune che ora sta per essere pubblicato, RIPENSARE I PRESOCRATICI.
Di questo libro è disponibile una sinossi. Si trova qui:
https://www.academia.edu/82498263/Ripensare_i_presocratici_SINOSSI_2022

[ last update: 08.06.2020 ]       
INDICE:        Il programma (p. 1) ― An overview / Uno sguardo all'insieme (p. 2) ―  0. Preliminarmente (p. 9) ― 1. Omero (p. 12) ― 2. Saffo (p. 19) ― 3. Talete (p. 26) ― 4. Anassimandro (p. 35) ― 5. Anassimene (p. 46) ― 5bis. Ecateo (p. 55) ― 6. Senofane (p. 59) ― 7. Eraclito (p. 67) ― 8. Pitagora (p. 77)  ―  8bis. Alcmeone (p. 84) ― 9. Parmenide, I parte (p. 88) ― 10. Parmenide, II parte (p. 100) ― 11. Melisso (p. 109) ― Zenone (p. 117).
----------- -----------
Una intera serie di incontri sui Presocratici (e su un articolato insieme di altri intellettuali coevi) ha avuto luogo a Perugia tra il novembre 2017 e il maggio 2018.
Su Youtube sono disponibili sette video. Qui il settimo della serie:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnG1hsGquYA
----------- -----------
A whole series of public talks, devoted to the Presocratics (plus other Greek 'intellectuals' who were active in the same period) took place in Perugia between November 2017 and May 2018..
On Youtube seven videos are available. Just digit 'Cultura presocratica'. The last one:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnG1hsGquYA

This is a full text of the review of M. Sassi's monograph 'The beginnings of philosophy in Greece' (2018), a very brief exposition of which has been published previously in Classical Review. While passing a generally favorable verdict on the value of Sassi''s contribution to  the study of this much-debated topic, the author also criticizes somewhat excessive 'pluralism' of 'beginnings' admitted by Sassi,  by emphasizing the fundamental and leading  role of the two main 'beginnings', represented by the Ionian Peri physeos historia, a detached scientific study of nature  (physis), on the one hand, and the Italian (Pythagorean and Eleatic) 'search for wisdom' (philosophy as a way of life), primarily centered on psyche and setting life-building and educational goals.  By engaging in a dialogue with Sassi, the author takes opportunity to expose his own views on the origin of Greek philosophy and science that disagree with much of what one can read in modern histories of ancient philosophy about Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Pythagoreans, Alcmaeon and other Pre-Platonic thinkers. This disagreement results not so much from the invention of new interpretations, as from the rejection of the 19th - 20th centuries hypercritical approach to the sources of  Preplatonic philosophy, as well as from the rejection of the false category of 'Presocrastics' together with the ill-founded doxographical theory of Diels,  and a return to the ancient tradition combined with respect to the opinion of the ancient readers of the lost Preplatonic works: the study of 'hermeneutical isoglosses' and reliance on  the consensus of independent ancient readers who possessed the complete texts of the lost Pre-Platonic works. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae provides a powerful tool for this research, unknown to previous generations of scholars.

Philosophy is usually believed to be a timeless virtuality. Nevertheless, it is widely assumed that philosophy began in Miletus with Thales (or just a little later, with Heraclitus and Parmenides). Nevertheless, it is equally well known that the Presocratics ignored to be philosophers, and therefore couldn't want to be called philosophers.
These points are not mutually compatible. So, what lies behind them? What is escaping our attention?
In this paper I attept to outline a more consistent answer. 
Towards the end, I'll try to qualify the idea of philosophy which happened to be outlined, mainly thanks to Socrates and Plato, at the very beginnings of its history.

I examine Heidegger's reflections on the Anaximander fragment, concentrating on the question of justice. In his commentary, Heidegger draws on Nietzsche's thoughts about justice, the will to power, and nihilism to formulate an interpretation of the fragment that connects it to the epochal history and destiny of being. This "ontological" interpretation, constructed in a compelling reading of the history of philosophy, requires that Heidegger first address the historicism and "ontological forgetfulness" prevailing in historical consciousness and historiography, in order to begin thinking towards the possibility of another epoch of being, releasing us from the injustice that is inherent in the ontology that rules in the present historical dispensation. Although Heidegger avoids moral prescription, he cannot avoid critical entanglement in the moral-juridical sense of justice, despite his claims and protestations, since, as his own account of the fragment implies, justice and ontology must be inseparable. Reading Heidegger's commentary in relation to Benjamin's philosophy of history, I argue that Heidegger's reflections on justice suggest a multi-layered narrative of tragic hope which, despite crucial differences, resembles Benjamin's configuration of justice in his reading of the Baroque mourning-play, where the hopelessly fragmented and imperiled image of justice is revealed as emerging from a "Leidensgeschichte" fatefully bound up in the continuum of a "Schuldgeschichte".

Philosophers are generally somewhat wary of the hints of number mysticism in the reports about the beliefs and doctrines of the so-called Pythagoreans. It's not clear how much Pythagoras himself (as opposed to his later followers) indulged in speculation about numbers, or in more serious mathematics. But the Pythagoreans whom Aristotle discusses in the Metaphysics had some elaborate stories to tell about how the universe could be explained in terms of numbers—not just its physics but perhaps morality too. Was this just fanciful speculation? Is it muddled as a theory of causality, as Aristotle suggests? I shall try to rehabilitate the passion for numbers by linking it with the notions of harmony and proportion in other thinkers who have a higher credibility factor in the philosophical stakes, and by showing that the desire to reduce quality to quantity, and to discover an exact science that can explain human life and meaning, is a serious philosophical passion that doesn't easily go away. And, after all, why should it?

"Ripensare i presocratici" ("Rethinking the Presocratics") is a book of mine, published by MIMESIS, Milano in July 2023..
A considerable discontinuity from the current image of most Presocratics marks it.
To begin with:: it is still widespread the idea that Thales was all about water, Anaximander all about apeiron and Anaximenes all about air, while no fourth prominent Milesian happens to be at least mentioned in current surveys on the Presocratics. Parmenides, in turn, continues to be the great philosopher of being and nothing else, Zeno a volunteer fighter in defense of the honor of Parmenides, and so on.
As it will be apparent from the synopsis, I can no more adhere to such an orthodoxy. In my opinion these ancient intellectuals did much more and much better.
In previous books and papers I argued for individual points (on Thales, on Parmenides, etc.), while this time I tried to  look around and submit a whole group of ancient investigators (a 'world', one could say) to a renewed curiosity. As a consequence, their portrayals are becoming remarkably different from those that are in circulation. For example, a Presocratic Botany now surfaces for the very first time...
SINCE  MANY CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS AND SCIENTISTS, NOT UNLIKE ALMOST ALL TEXTBOOKS, SEEM TOO OFTEN PRONE TO THE MOST CONVENTIONAL PORTRAYALS OF THIS WORLD, MY BOOK IS PRIMARILY ADDRESSED TO ALERT THEM.

Anaximander is credited, i.a., for having been the author of the very first graphic rendering of the whole known world, thus with the invention of a successful protype, that of large scale maps. For a very long time, this prototype has been treated as but a secondary achievement of his, while paying the greatest attention to the ‘philosophical’ doctrine of apeiron in the vein of a celebrated page of Aristotle. My paper, inspired as it is to a substantial disagreement from such a portrayal, is devoted to reach a more definite idea of what the rendering based on the coastline is likely to have meant for him as well as for his fellow citizens, an undertaking completely autonomous with respect to the sort of investigations to which Thales was most intensely committed.

This dissertation presents a new account of Thales based on the idea that Acheloios—a deity equated with water in the ancient Greek world and found in Miletos during Thales’ life—was the most important cultic deity influencing the thinker, profoundly shaping his philosophical worldview.  In doing so, it also weighs in on the metaphysical and epistemological dichotomy that seemingly underlies all academia—the antithesis of the methodological postulate of Marxian dialectical materialism vis-à-vis the Platonic idea of fundamentally real transcendental forms.  Unbeknownst to many philosophers, there are various Neo-Marxian scholars that position the origin of coinage as the pivotal technological development giving rise to impersonal “metaphysical cosmology,” suggesting that the value of money was more-or-less projected back onto the cosmos in the form of “ideal substances.” While the arguments are incredibly sophisticated and persuasive, their conclusions (either stated or implied) are rather difficult to swallow: the self is merely an illusion, abstract ideas of an ultimate source of value, like God or the Good, are totally delusional (as is the soul), and essentially everything is reducible to mankind’s enslavement to commodities and the notion of our own objectified labor (the true source of all value according to Marx). Not only is this a dangerous belief that many philosophers (consciously or unconsciously) have adopted, since essentially any action could be “justified,” it is also demonstrably false, since it rests on a thorough misunderstanding of Thales and misconception of philosophy as such.

My work rectifies that misunderstanding. In an important sense, it is an attempt at redefining philosophy as a “love of wisdom,” which I argue was accurate even in its Presocratic setting, and it uses the influence of Acheloios on Thales to do so. Throughout its pages I explore the etymology and historical uses of the word ὔδωρ, examine the archaeological context of 7th to 6th century Miletos, consider various aquatic myths Thales encountered, and highlight a hitherto overlooked tradition stemming from Thales and influencing such thinkers as Pythagoras, Empedokles, and Hippo, which culminates in a completely new reading of Plato’s Phaedrus.  It is there that we find Socrates and Phaedrus engaging in dialogue while surrounded by the iconography of Acheloios and the nymphs, all while they lie reclined like river gods (the sinews of Acheloios) on the banks of the Ilisos.  And it is in that dialogue that Plato defines philosophy as a love of wisdom—the beholding of a multiplicity of hermeneutical frameworks—and alludes to the fact that it began with the sacrifice of Acheloios, the initial philosophical maneuver which he attributes to Thales. I end with a threefold rejoinder to the Neo-Marxian school, corresponding to the λόγος, μῦθος, and ἔργον of Acheloios.  It turns out that, (1) the λόγος of Acheloios contained the ideal preconditions conducive to an abstraction to a more refined philosophical worldview in which water operated as the One among the Many; (2) the μῦθος of Acheloios actually encouraged the application of the notion of sacrifice to Acheloios himself (thus revealing his essence as divine water); and, (3), the ἔργον of Acheloios, in which he kneels in assent to sacrifice, is found on a coin that was probably designed by Thales himself. In the final analysis, I suggested we have recourse to Acheloios yet again, and reorient ourselves toward the οὐσια ὄντως οὖσα.

Τὸ ἄπειρον is Aristotelian and doxographical term, not an authentic term of Anaximander himself. In the key aristotelian passage on which the doxographical tradition depends, Aristotle does not ascribe this term specifically and exclusively to Anaximander, he uses it as descriptive term for the infinite matter, a doctrine common to  the "most of the physiologoi". The doxographers describe Anaxagoras' first principles as τὸ ἄπειρον plus Νοῦς, but the substantivated neutrum τὸ ἄπειρον does not occur in Anaxagoras' verbatim fragments, he uses ἄπειρον only as a predicate.   
    Postscipt June 2015:  I still have no doubt that the attribution of this Aristotelian term to Anaximander is a serious mistake, but I do not support anymore the thesis of the second part of my paper (VDI 1978 Nr2, pp. 43-58) in which I suggested that the original term of Anaximander was Χρόνος ἄπειρος. And I do not believe anymore in any Iranian or "Orphic" influences on Anaximander's physics. The hypothesis of cosmogonic Chronos was based on the wrong interpretation by Jaeger of the phrase κατὰ την τοῦ Χρόνου τάξιν in fr. B 1 as allegedly meaning "according to the ordinance of Time". The discovery of the neglected paraphrases of B 1 which preserve the original Ionian terminology of change has convinced me that a personified Chronos in Anaximander is out of question: the phrase χρόνου τάξις is equivalent to χρόνος τεταγμένος and refers to the προθεσμία, the prefixed date for the repayment of debt (χρέος).

Traducción de la conferencia "Le fragment d'Anaximandre" dictada por el Dr. Néstor Cordero (École pratique des hautes études, Section des sciences religieuses. Annuaire. Tome 97. 1988. pp. 293-296.) Realizada para la cátedra de Historia de la Filosofía Antigua, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, diciembre de 2014. Corregida por el Dr. Rodrigo Sebastián Braicovich.

in: Il mar nero 9, 2012-2018 (2019), 7-47

Thales of Miletos should be regarded, like his fellow 'Seven Sages' of Greece, first as a politician-statesman and only second as the founder of the Milesian school of philosophy. Around 600 BCE, oligarchic or tyrannical Greek city states confronted frequent staseis, political insurrections, in reaction to abuses by ruling elites. Wise men like Solon in Athens or Pittakos in Mytilene stepped in with reforms aimed at reducing social disparities and creating a politically active middle class. Thales and his student Anaximander promoted a cosmology aligned with these legislative reforms. Isonomia (equal rights), symmetry and equilibrium applied to nature, with the earth as the motionless center of the kosmos. Thales applied natural philosophy to the new city plan of Miletos (ca. 575–550 BCE), fitting houses and temples into a street grid oriented in accordance with the sun and winds. He enlarged the agora as the symbolic heart of the city state, and gave his co-citizens the advice " adorn yourself by taking a magistracy ". When the Persians pressed the Ionian cities in 546 BCE, Thales recommended that they unite into a federal state, with Teos as capital. When Thales died, he was buried in the agora of Miletos and venerated as a heroic city-founder. ----

This paper took some time to be printed and I still lack a pdf.... Due to its topicality I decided to make it accessible asap to promote discussion on the history of democracy and its currently endangered state. The achievements of enlightenment and international human rights are ruined by 0.00001% or so of humankind. This is simply perverse!

Table of contents
1. Preliminary remarks. Eliminating the wrong category of ‘Presocratics’, correcting the improper use of the terms ‘monists’ and ‘pluralists’, and clarifying the distinction between ‘corpuscular’ and ‘atomistic’ theories of matter. – p. 689.
2. The new concept of ‘nature’ (φύσις) and the scientific revolution in Miletus in the first half of the 6th century B.C. The emergence of the first evolutionary history of the cosmos. — p. 697
3. Aristotle’s evidence on Anaximander’s theory of primordial substance as ‘mixture’ (􏱎􏱏Ἀναξιμάνδρου μῖγμα􏱓􏱔􏱕). The term ‘intermediate’ element (τὸ μεταξύ) is Aristotle’s own conventional label for the group of theories incompatible with his own theory of elements. Misinterpretations of the quotation from ‘Anaximander and most of physiologoi’ in Phys. Γ 4. — p. 706
4. The origin of the arche-formula (τὸ ἄπειρον = ἀρχἠ) attributed to Anaximander in the Imperial doxography. — p. 716
5. The evidence of Theophrastus on the universal mixture in Anaximander. The neglected analogy of gold-washing and the theory of vortex (δίνη) in Anaximander’s cosmogony. — p. 722
6. Additional evidence on the cosmogonical vortex in Anaximander and Anaximenes provided by Epicurus in the book XI of 􏱛"On nature" (Περὶ φύσεως) — p. 729
7. The ‘winnowing of seeds’ analogy in Xenophanes and in Plato’s Timaeus. Its relation to Anaximander’s analogy — p. 736
8. The true meaning of the fragment B1 DK. Anaximander’s discovery of the fundamental law of Greek physics, the law of conservation of matter 􏱞􏱟ἐκ μηδενὸς􏱋 μηδὲν γίνεσθαι (‘ex nihilo nihil fit’). — p. 741
9. Neglected anonymous quotations and reminiscences of Anaximander B 1. Heraclitus’ adaptation of Anaximander’s analogy to his own theory of the cosmic cycles and ‘fated changes.’ — p. 750
10. A hypothesis concerning the social status of the so-called ‘Milesian school’: a collegium or thiasos of physikoi, experts on matters of astronomy, geography, meteorology etc. under the patronage of Apollo Didymeus, serving the practical needs of the Milesian colonization, sea trade and founding new poleis. Evidence on a ‘conversation hall’ (􏱢λέσχη) as a possible seat of the collegium. — p. 758
Bibliography — p. 765

My main claim is that the teachings of Anaximander are much better knowable than they actually appear, since a number of his teachings have the privilege of being almost transparent in their predicative content as well as in their logic. As a matter of fact, one can quite easily come to understand the train of thought which lies behind Anaximander’s most momentous conjectures. Thus, a largely unexpected Anaximander comes to light now, despite the availability of almost every relevant source since 1903.
Two main areas appear to be particularly prominent: on the one hand, the complex body of various conjectures and doctrines that helps to understand the system of spatial relationships from Miletus to the stars and, on the other hand, the equally complex body of conjectures and doctrines whose primarily concern is the macro-history of the Earth from its most remote past to its predictable future.
The merits of Anaximander as an earth-researcher are much greater than one could imagine. It is suggested here that what philosophy owes to him in particular lies in his quest for knowledge, his method, his cognitive hybris, and his intellectual discipline. rather than individual doctrines. A comparison with Thales follows in the last paragraph.

Professor Jeff Mitscherling This thesis explores the role the concept of divinity played in the physical theories of Anaximander of Miletus (c.610 -c.546 BCE), arguing that his work anticipated and helped create the metaphysical theories of Aristotle and subsequent thinkers. Focusing on Anaximander's notion of the apeiron (the indefinite), the thesis claims: (1) that Anaximander used theological terms to describe a physical and ontological principle well before such concepts were elucidated by Aristotle himself; that he thereby (2) anticipated Aristotle's potentiality-actuality distinction; and (3) identified the central flaws of the mode of explanation current in 6 th -century BCE Miletus. The argument is supported by a conceptual schema which shows that Anaximander advanced an ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful metaphysical theory that assigned the apeiron both temporal and ontological priority, thereby serving as an early alternative to Aristotle's Prime Mover.

New interpretation of Anaximander's theory of matter and of the fragment B 1 DK. Τὸ ἄπειρον is Aristotelian term, not an authentic term of Anaximander who spoke about Φύσις ἄπειρος, ἀΐδιος καὶ ἀγήρως "Boundless nature, eternal and never-aging". The consensus of Aristotle and Theophrastus makes it certain that Anaximander conceived this eternal matter as a mixture or a panspermia of different stuffs similar to the universal mixture of Anaxagoras (but without cosmic Nous). Therefore the pluralis ἐξ ὧν ... εἰς ταῦτα "out of which /elements/... into the same" refers to the original matter of the Universe, not to the "opposites" pace Burnet, Jaeger, Kahn, Kirk-Raven and others. The  metaphorical language of this first formulation of the fundamental  in Greek physics principle ex nihilo nihil fit is not poetic all, but is based on the analogy with borrowing and repaying debt at prefixed date. Neglected paraphrases of Anaximander B 1 in Heraclitus the Allegorist, Philo Alexandrinus and Ioannes Lydus demonstrate that in its authentic form the fragment used Ionian mechanistic terminology of separation-composition-decomposition of particles (ἀποκρίνεσθαι, συγκρίνεσθαι, διακρίνεσθαι) , and not the Aristotelian terminology of "generation and destruction" (γίγνεσθαι καὶ φθείρεσθαι).

In this paper, I explore the Presocratic antecedents of the Stoic theory of conflagration and argue that, even though three central theses of this theory have solid antecedents in Presocratic physics, the logical connection between them is a Stoic innovation. I label the Presocratics who hold these theses 'Anaximandreans' and include in this group Anaximander himself , Heraclitus and Diogenes of Apollonia, and reveal that Anaximenes, Democritus and Antiphon share with them central meteorological and cosmological assumptions.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>update 06.03.2022:

Alexandru will get a special memorial article which is currently in preparation for "Il mar nero" XI, 2021/22

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update 12.01.2022:

this article is also devoted to the remembrance of my friend Alexandru Avram, who died on August 8, 2021 from pulmonary embolism in the Milesian colony of Histria/Istros, after being vaccinated twice.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


>>>>>>>>> update of 10/06/2021:

the new pdf quality is much better now, so that the text is perfectly searchable.

Have fun with it!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> update of 10/3/2021:

it becomes more and more obvious that the lockdown measures of the Corona-regimes aim at destroying the middle class!!!

Think about it, and be aware of the outcome as I already stressed in 2019!!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



I wrote this article as a reaction on the ongoing crisis of western democracies to remind everybody of the outcome of the end of democracy: bloody civil war! Do you want this ?????

published in: Il mar nero 9, 2012/2018 (2019), 7-47

Thales of Miletos should be regarded, like his fellow 'Seven Sages' of Greece, first as a politician-statesman and only second as the founder of the Milesian school of philosophy. Around 600 BCE, oligarchic or tyrannical Greek city states confronted frequent staseis, political insurrections, in reaction to abuses by ruling elites. Wise men like Solon in Athens or Pittakos in Mytilene stepped in with reforms aimed at reducing social disparities and creating a politically active middle class. Thales and his student Anaximander promoted a cosmology aligned with these legislative reforms. Isonomia (equal rights), symmetry and equilibrium applied to nature, with the earth as the motionless center of the kosmos. Thales applied natural philosophy to the new city plan of Miletos (ca. 575–550 BCE), fitting houses and temples into a street grid oriented in accordance with the sun and winds. He enlarged the agora as the symbolic heart of the city state, and gave his co-citizens the advice " adorn yourself by taking a magistracy ". When the Persians pressed the Ionian cities in 546 BCE, Thales recommended that they unite into a federal state, with Teos as capital. When Thales died, he was buried in the agora of Miletos and venerated as a heroic city-founder. A few years later, his nephew and most influential pupil Anaximander was most likely assassinated in the Milesian Black Sea colony Apollonie Pontike when trying to invent a similar kind of moderate democracy in a colonial oligarchic, old-fashioned society, after he had fled the conquest of the Ionian city states by monarchic Persia.

Although the view that Anaximander was a Material Monist is not very popular nowadays, it is still widely held that it was embraced by Aristotle at least on some occasions, then adopted by Theophrastus, and later on inherited by Simplicius, our main source on the Presocratics. I argue that none of these three philosophers held this view and that, for this reason, it should not be seen as the standard Ancient interpretation of Anaximander.

Od svih ranih grčkih filozofa Anaksimandar (oko 610–546 g. p. n. e.) zaslužuje posebnu pažnju, jer je on vjerovatno prvi dao sveobuhvatan i detaljan opis nastanka i funkcioniranja kozmosa, a to, za razliku od njegovog prethodnika Talesa o kojem ne znamo mnogo, potvrđuju svjedočanstva iz antike. Svjedočanstva nam donose da je Anaksimandar vjerovatno prvi Grk koji je napisao filozofsku knjigu, koja je pri tome vjerovatno prva prozna filozofska knjiga, ako ne i prva prozna knjiga kod Grka uopće. Izumio je gnomon (sunčev sat) ili ga je prvi upotrebljavao u Grčkoj. Također je prvi napravio kartu naseljenog svijeta, pa ga neki nazivaju ocem geografije. Dao je prvi racionalan opis nastanka kozmosa, a zbog svoga učenja o apeiron-u neki stručnjaci ga smatraju prvim metafizičarem. Prvi je smatrao da Zemlja lebdi u prostoru, odnosno da nije oslonjena ni na šta. Uveo je matematiku u kozmologiju i prvi je pokušao odrediti veličine Zemlje i nebeskih tijela, te njihove međusobne udaljenosti, što ga po mišljenju nekih stručnjaka čini prvim znanstvenikom. Kao što je iz prirodnih uzroka i na racionalan način objasnio nastanak kozmosa, isto tako je objasnio njegovo funkcioniranje u sadašnjoj, razvijenoj formi, te je dao objašnjenje meteoroloških pojava. Prvi je pokušao na racionalana način, ne pozivajući se na mitologiju i religiju, objasniti nastanak životinja i ljudi. Smatrao je da su se kasnije vrste životinja, kao i ljudi, razvili iz prvobitnih životinja, pa ga mnogi smatraju pretečom teorije evolucije.

Although we have only one extant fragment from the sixth-century BC Milesian philosopher, Anaximander of Miletus, a number of doxographies enable us to reconstruct his ideas concerning the origin and evolution of the present order of things, that is, what may be called a historia (or investigation) of the peri phuseos type. What is distinctly important about the Milesian’s historia is that being the first rational account of this type to have come down to us, it helps us understand what is involved in a movement from the mythopoetic to a speculative account. One of the most interesting facets of Anaximander’s system is his cosmological model, which places an immobile earth at the center of a celestial sphere. The reason given is that, the earth being equidistant from all the points of the celestial circumference, there is no reason for it to move up rather than down, or left rather than right.  In sum, the Milesian’s reasoning behind the position of the earth appears to be mathematical. It is therefore not surprising that this is often considered Anaximander’s greatest achievement; for it liberated the mind from the idea that the earth needed a material support. This is not the only role the earth played in his cosmology. The earth is also the most important element in determining the sizes and distances of the other celestial bodies; that is, their sizes and distances are analogous to the dimensions of the earth. This may be deduced from a certain number of doxographies which tell us that the Milesian conceived the shape of the earth as that of a column drum three times as broad as it is high and that the distances of the stars, of the moon, and of the sun (or the respective rings) from the center of the earth are in a ratio of 1:2:3. It appears that Anaximander realized his universe according to a mathematical plan following the series 3. This hypothesis, first formulated by Paul Tannery in the late nineteenth century, has in spite of its conjectural nature, been adopted by the vast majority of commentators. However, they are far from agreeing about the origin of the numbers and consequently about the origin of the cosmological model. There are, in the main, four hypotheses: (1) they are the result of a sacred inspiration; (2) they are the result of an astronomical inspiration; (3) they are the result of an architectural inspiration; (4) they are the result of a political inspiration. I argue that the numbers which translate the sizes and distances of the heavenly bodies in relation to the earth correspond in some way or other to the three social groups of which the polis of Anaximander’s time was composed: the aristocracy, the (new) middle class and the peasantry (or poor). Anaximander’s cosmological model reflects what he saw as the only possible way of ridding the polis of the political dissention of his time: isonomia. Thus, each of the three social groups would correspond to one of the three celestial rings whose numbers translate the same relation of equality, symmetry, and reciprocity (1:2:3) in relation to the centre of the universe, as the three social groups in relation to the agora. Consequently, since Anaximander, like Plato, is advocating a socio-political model which has yet to be realized, he may be considered as the first known utopian. 

Twenty years after publishing this article, I’m still convinced Anaximander’s cosmological model has a socio-political dimension whatever the Milesian’s talent as an astronomer. I’ll be posting shortly a couple of subsequently published articles on Anaximander’s measurements, and on the social and political history of the period to reinforce my case in the JHI article. I have not been able to correct the typos in the original article.

This paper try to show the decisive importance of presocratic thought in the philosophy of Simondon. Notably, "apeiron" and "physics" are key notions to understand the theory of individuation (as far as contemporary physics) and how a new philosophy of nature is possible. In another hand, this paper try to show Simondon as an original historian of philosophy.