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)

Si la notion de « préindividuel » fait figure de nouveauté lexicale par rapport au vocabulaire de la métaphysique traditionnelle, et se présente ainsi comme une idée « neuve » à partir de laquelle Gilbert Simondon prétend rompre avec toute une tradition de pensée de l’individuation, celui-ci se réfère pourtant à plusieurs reprises pour en expliciter le sens aux notions d’apeiron et de phusis présocratiques. Cependant, c’est en s’appuyant également sur la notion de « métastabilité », qu’il emprunte à (...) la thermodynamique des états loin de l’équilibre, que Simondon confère à l’idée de « préindividuel » une signification originale. Il s’agira d’abord de comprendre comment s’inscrit dans la construction de l’hypothèse simondonienne ce retour à la pensée présocratique, avant de nous interroger sur les fondements de la méthode qui consiste à « actualiser » l’idée d’un état de l’être antérieur à toute forme individuée en empruntant des notions et des paradigmes aux sciences positives qui cherchent à théoriser les processus de transformation et de changement d’état de systèmes. Le but de cet examen est de questionner la légitimité d’une démarche analogique qui prétend faire bénéficier la réflexion métaphysique du développement des sciences, et de montrer dans quelle mesure la méthode « transductive » de construction de l’idée de préindividuel échappe au double écueil qui consisterait soit à s’en tenir à un usage métaphorique des schèmes de pensée scientifiques, soit à verser dans une forme de positivisme réductionniste. (shrink)

The article deals with the oldest criticism of Anaximander’s monism, for which we have evidence, found in John Philoponus’ commentary on the first book of Aristotle’s Physics . Philoponus’ argumentation is analytically examined and explained, its premises brought to light and its conclusions evaluated. It is shown how his inquiry, although anticipating modern discussions about the classification of Anaximander’s doctrine in terms of ‘monism’ and ‘pluralism’, differs from the contemporary approach to the problem when it comes to both results and (...) methodology. (shrink)

The reconstruction of the teachings of Аnaximander about the origin of the world is based on the analysis of his practical attempts to simulate some natural phenomena and invent devices or scientific instruments that explain and predict some meteorological events. The Earth rests in equilibrium not only because of its location in the center of the Universe, but also because it is «supported» by the «shell» of «ἀήρ». In the formation of the world, due to the eternal circular motion, from (...) a mixture of hot and cold stood out «ἀήρ» and «αἰθήρ», constituting the contradictory essence of «apeiron». Pairs of opposites: hot and cold; wet and dry – the energy component of the material principle. Due to the eternal irreversible fatal cyclic process of interaction of these pairs of opposites there is a constant renewal in nature. «Apeiron» in accordance with the immanently inherent property of purposive authority of the law of global processes taking place in it, a fatal impersonal force and unavoidable response for its violation, provides a just balance of forces in the Universe as a whole. (shrink)

This book explores the evolution of space and time from the apeiron — the spaceless, timeless chaos of primordial nature. Here Western culture’s efforts to deny apeiron are examined, and we see the critical need now to lift the repression of the apeiron for the sake of human individuation.

Scholars debate whether ‘apeiron’ (unlimited) is univocal or multivocal in Plato’s 'Philebus.' Offering a ‘middle path,’ I argue that the term is univocal, but used with respect to two senses of unlimited continua. The term appears early in two dense passages on ontological structure: the descriptions of the ‘god-given method’ (16b-18d) and ‘the fourfold division of beings’ (23c-27c). I consider each passage and argue that they respectively concern the eidetic continua of being that the knower comes to understand and (...) the fluxing continua of opposed and co-constitutive bodily elements from which spatiotemporal objects derive their natures. They also indicate two major influences on Plato, respectively the Pythagorean and Heraclitean as recorded in Aristotle’s 'Metaphysics,' and I draw on these resources to develop my account. I conclude by considering some important Platonic lessons that we learn from thinking through this distinction between the related senses of the unlimited. (shrink)

Anaximandro de Mileto teria nascido em 610 a.C conforme o testemunho de Hipólito, Aristóteles de Estagira, em 384 a.C. É evidente que vivenciaram períodos distintos na Grécia Arcaica. Contudo, tinham interesses incomuns, a saber; explicar o mundo na esteira da natureza. Anaximandro propôs sua explicação a partir de um elemento indefinido - `απείρων. Este trabalho pretende investigar a intenção de Aristóteles ao voltar seu olhar para o elemento primordial anaximandrino, fato assaz curioso, que resulta em quatro citações mencionando o nome (...) de Anaximandro na obra De Caelo, e na Física. Ao contrário de seguir rumo à tradução laboriosa dos fragmentos, o que seria saltar sobre um abismo com limiar escorregadio, pretende-se estabelecer paralelamente e em que se aproximam ou se divergem a cosmologia de Anaximandro e o mundo sublunar e supra lunar abarcados na cosmologia de Aristóteles. Outrossim, nos aproximar da noção de apeíron e éter das respectivas cosmologias desses filósofos. (shrink)

The arguments I examine in this chapter are not necessarily from Anaximander. Anaximander is generally known for having put the ἄπειρον as a principle (ἀρχή), probably due to the greater radicality with which he affirmed the physical – perhaps also epistemic – indeterminacy (and the consequent ineffability) of the principle of the φύσις. However, it is well known that, according to Aristotle, a large part of archaic physics or physiology had placed the ἄπειρον as the origin and foundation of the (...) becoming, to the point of deifying it as a living, surrounding, ruling and probably animated body (σῶμα), whose nature was separate or at any rate different from visible reality and its major components. I will call it Arkhé Apeiros Theory (TAA). A TAA then exists for archaic philosophy in general, and not only for Anaximander, and is based on a fairly clear common feature, namely the idea that the principle of nature is an indeterminate body (σῶμα ἄπειρον) and is, therefore, although to a variable extent, unknowable-ineffable. (shrink)

At Philebus 23c4-26d10 Socrates makes a division into three kinds: Unbounded (apeiron), Bound (peras), and Mix (meikton). I review problems for the main interpretations of Unbounded and Mix and review kinds of scales defined in abstract measurement theory. Then I take 23c4-26d10 speech by speech, interpreting the Unbounded as a kind containing partial scales, Bound as the kind containing the relations and quantities needed to turn partial scales into appropriate ratio scales, and Mix as the kind containing ratio scales (...) appropriate for the good things that come to be in the world. (shrink)

This essay offers a broad historical exploration of the apeiron, the ancient principle of boundlessness and indeterminacy first brought to light by Anaximander in the 6th century BCE. Early Greek philosophy’s struggle with the apeiron and apeiron’s subsequent repression during the Renaissance and Enlightenment are noted. In the nineteenth century, apeiron is resurgent in science, art, and other fields—only to be repressed again with the early twentieth century rise of modernism. But with modernism's collapse into postmodernism, (...) once again the apeiron comes to the fore. The conclusion reached is that the apeiron can be effectively contained only by consciously acknowledging and accepting it as part of the process of individuation. (shrink)

Este trabajo intenta resolver una tensión que existe en el modo en que Aristóteles concibe el apeiron de Anaximandro, la substancia a partir de la cual se genera el cosmos. En algunas partes del corpus, Aristóteles la presenta como un cuerpo básico que genera el cosmos por medio de un cambio de sus cualidades, pero en otras como un cuerpo compuesto de substancias básicas que el cual generaría el cosmos cuando éstas se separan la una de la otra. Como (...) veremos, sin embargo, sólo este segundo modelo es el que Aristóteles realmente le atribuye a Anaximandro. Al final, se propone una hipótesis respecto de quién podría ser entonces la persona, o grupo de personas, que Aristóteles tiene en mente cuando se refiere al primer modelo. (shrink)

(2008). Book Review: “Dimensions of Apeiron: A Topological Phenomenology of Space, Time, and Individuation”. World Futures: Vol. 64, No. 8, pp. 631-633.

Rastreamos un concepto de “percepción etológica” en Gilbert Simondon asociado a una “etología metaestable” que podría desarticular la diferenciación entre los regímenes de individuación físico y viviente establecida claramente por el filósofo francés en La individuación a la luz de las nociones de forma e información. Nos situamos en el curso El hombre y el objeto (1974-1975), donde aparece una idea de “objeto-organismo” que desencadena dicha problemática. En un segundo momento, indagamos sobre el fundamento preplatónico de lo “preindividual” en La (...) individuación y el énfasis en la noción de apeiron (lo “ilimitado”), pues ello le permite a Simondon plantear una “carga de naturaleza” que se mantiene en las entidades individuadas como resto potencial, lo cual proponemos como clave para interpretar la dimensión “etológica” mencionada en relación con la percepción. Concluimos con algunas proyecciones que profundizan en esta posibilidad a propósito de Protágoras y del “materialismo especulativo” de Quentin Meillassoux. (shrink)

In On Generation and Corruption, Aristotle rejects the very possibility of such a thing as Anaximander’s apeiron. Characterized as a kind of intermediate stuff, the apeiron turns out to consist of contraries and as such is impossible. Commentators have rightly noted this point and some have also indicated that Aristotle offers an argument of sorts for his negative estimate. However, the argument has received scant attention, and it is fair to say that it remains unclear exactly why Aristotle (...) rejects Anaximander’s intermediate stuff. Indeed, it is unclear how Aristotle’s argument is supposed to run in the first place. This paper offers a reconstruction of Aristotle’s argument for the impossibility of the apeiron, and on this basis offers to explain Aristotle’s grounds for rejecting Anaximander’s intermediate stuff. This is especially called for in light of the fact that Aristotle himself thinks that there can be intermediate stuffs. Finally, some attention is given to the parallel between the apeiron and Aristotle’s prime matter. (shrink)

This article examines Hesiod’s Chaos and Anaximander’s apeiron individually and in relation to each other through the frame of René Descartes’ notion of natural geometry and through bounds and limits in Euclid and Immanuel Kant. Thanks to this frame, it shows that, in his poetic vision, Hesiod saw in Chaos the act of bounding such that different things can appear while, in his speculative vision, Anaximander saw in the apeiron the self-limiting limit of bounded things, which is to (...) say, time as distinct from the temporality of bounded things resulting from Chaos. Thus, together, Chaos and the apeiron present the spatiotemporal order of the world. Finally, delving further into Anaximander’s fragment shows that the justice ruling over all includes the apeiron as the time foundational to temporality, meaning justice is without foundation and therefore anarchic. (shrink)

The book is a historical investigation of the problem of infinity in Greek ontology and physics - more specifically, the problem of the infinite size of the world and of its eternal existence, the problem of the infinity of worlds, of infinite divisibility of matter, of infinity of attributes or attribute modes (e.g., infinity of atom shapes), and the problem of infinity of nonphysical entities such as mathematical constructs. The view espoused here is that infinity was of paramount importance for (...) Greek philosophers even if it was not explicitly discussed by them. It served as an unspoken assumption without which Greek philosophy could hardly be possible. (shrink)