Some classical authors ascribe to Anaximander of Miletus a belief in the existence of infinite worlds. Their testimonies have provoked an extensive discussion on the question of whether Anaximander spoke of successive or coexistent worlds, or perhaps only one world that undergoes changes. Of course, this subject is related to important aspects of archaic cosmologies. First, we need to investigate whether one can even speak of a notion of coexistent worlds prior to atomist theories. Second, the issue of infinite worlds (...) is closely linked to the nature of Anaximander's scheme of the universe and Ionian cosmologies in general. Finally, this matter has a bearing on the subject of the duration or perishing of the world. (shrink)

This study focuses on the origin of life as presented in the thought of Anaximander of Miletus but also points to some parallel motifs found in much later conceptions of both the pre-Darwinian German romantic science and post-Darwinian biology. According to Anaximander, life originated in the moisture associated with earth (mud). This moist environment hosted the first living creatures that later populated the dry land. In these descriptions, one can trace the earliest hints of the notion of environmental adaptation. The (...) origin of humans was seen as connected in some way with fish: ancient humans were supposed to have developed inside fish-like animals. Anaximander took into account changes in the development of living creatures (adaptations) and speculated on the origins of humans. Similar ideas are found also in the writings of much later, eighteenth and nineteenth century authors who were close to the tradition of German romantic science. We do not argue that these later concepts are in any way directly linked with those of the pre-Socratics, but they show surprising parallels in, e.g., the hypothesis that life originated in a moist environment or the supposition that human developed from fish-like ancestors. These transformations are seen as a consequence of timeless logic rather than as evolution in historical terms. Despite the accent on the origin of living things, both Anaximander and the later Naturphilosophen lack in their notions the element most characteristic of Darwin’s thought, that is, the emphasis on historicity and uniqueness of all that comes into being. (shrink)

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

Diogenes Laertius ascribes the first concept of spherical Earth to both Pythagoras and Parmenides. Indeed, a major shift in cosmologies—emergence of the spherical conception of the Earth and the surrounding heaven—took place between the sixth and fifth centuries BCE. Given the poor state of preservation of early Pythagorean tradition, it is argued that primacy in formulating the notion of spherical Earth should be ascribed to Parmenides.

This book offers an innovative analysis of the Greek philosopher Anaximander’s work. In particular, it presents a completely new interpretation of the key word Apeiron, or boundless, offering readers a deeper understanding of his seminal cosmology and, with it, his unique conception of the origin of the universe. Anaximander traditionally applied Apeiron to designate the origin of everything. The authors’ investigation of the extant sources shows, however, that this common view misses the mark. They argue that instead of reading Apeiron (...) as a noun, it should be considered an adjective, with reference to the term phusis, and that the phrase phusis apeiros may express the boundless power of nature, responsible for all creation and growth. The authors also offer an interpretation of Anaximander's cosmogony from a biological perspective: each further step in the differentiation of the phenomenal world is a continuation of the original separation of a fertile seed. This new reading of the first written account of cosmology stresses the central role of the boundless power of nature. It provides philosophers, researchers, and students with a thought-provoking explanation of this early thinker's conception of generation and destruction in the universe. (shrink)

The usual interpretation has it that Anaximander made ‘the Boundless’ the source and principle of everything. However, in the works of Aristotle, the nearest witness, no direct connection can be found between Anaximander and ‘the Boundless’. On the contrary, Aristotle says that all the physicists made something else the subject of which ἄπειρος is a predicate. When we take this remark seriously, it must include Anaximander as well. This means that Anaximander did not make τὸ ἄπειρον the source or principle (...) of everything, but rather called something else ἄπειρος. The question is, then, what was the subject that he adorned with this predicate. The hypothesis defended in this article is that it must have been ϕύσις, not in its Aristotelian technical sense, but in the pregnant sense of natura creatrix: the power that brings everything into existence and makes it grow and move. This ‘nature’ is boundless. It rules everything and in this sense it can be called ‘divine’. Being boundless, the mechanisms of nature, in which the opposites play an important role, are multifarious. The things created by boundless nature are not boundless, but finite, as they are destined to the destruction they impose onto each other, as Anaximander’s fragment says. (shrink)

Studie předkládá novou interpretaci zpráv o oběhu nebeských těles podle Anaximena z Mílétu. Nebeská tělesa se v jeho pojetí nemají pohybovat pod Zemí, ale naopak kolem Země. Anaximenés měl danou koncepci přiblížit motivem plstěného klobouku, který se otáčí kolem naší hlavy. Případné vysvětlení oběhů nebeských těles pomocí nakloněné Země podél její horizontální osy však patrně mylně vychází až z koncepce kulové Země a sklonu ekliptiky. Je možné, že dochované texty ve skutečnosti navazují na problém sklonu nebeské osy a popisují původní (...) situaci oběhů nebeských těles předtím, než se „nebe naklonilo“. (shrink)

Studie předkládá novou interpretaci zpráv o oběhu nebeských těles podle Anaximena z Mílétu. Nebeská tělesa se v jeho pojetí nemají pohybovat pod Zemí, ale naopak kolem Země. Anaximenés měl danou koncepci přiblížit motivem plstěného klobouku, který se otáčí kolem naší hlavy. Případné vysvětlení oběhů nebeských těles pomocí nakloněné Země podél její horizontální osy však patrně mylně vychází až z koncepce kulové Země a sklonu ekliptiky. Je možné, že dochované texty ve skutečnosti navazují na problém sklonu nebeské osy a popisují původní (...) situaci oběhů nebeských těles předtím, než se „nebe naklonilo“. (shrink)

A number of aspects of the cosmology of Anaximenes of Miletus have not yet been convincingly explained, but we can assume that a starting point was the notion of a universe stretching only between a flat earth and heaven. This gave the cosmology its “meteorological” character: heavenly bodies were viewed as ignited evaporations of moisture. They were thought of as moving only above the earth’s surface, and their rising and setting were explained as an optical illusion. Similar approaches appear not (...) only in the Greek epic tradition but even in the writings of Xenophanes. It can therefore be assumed that Anaximenes’s conception is representative of contemporary Ionian explanations of cosmological events. (shrink)