Milesian Philosophers: Anaximander
A brief overview pt II
https://gofund.me/d5cc31bf
https://the-existential-pulse.myspreadshop.co.uk/
From Thales we now arrive at Anaximander.
Anaximander
Theophrastus gives us three sources of Anaximander’s physical theory:
Anaximander claimed that the arkhe is one, moving and apeiron. He claimed the apeiron was the arkhe and the element of things that are. He was first to call the arkhe apeiron. For him the Arkhe is neither Water nor any other element, but another nature: apeiron, which is ageless and eternal, surrounding the entire world and which all things arise (DK12A9, DK12A11, DK12A10).
What is clear is that Anaximander holds that Water is not the fundamental stuff. For him, that is this Apeiron, of which all things are composed. Now, Apeiron is very technical and can mean unlimited, boundless, or indefinite. Also, it can mean something like ‘unable to be got through’. But why should Anaximander not follow Thales? Aristotle provides a clue:
The infinite body cannot be one and simple, nor can it be apart from the elements..Some make the infinte seperate from the elements, rather than air or water, so as not to be destroyed by them in their infinity. For they contain oppositions: air is cold, water is wet, fire is hot. If any of these were infinite, the others would have been destroyed (Phys. 3.3 204b22-29).
Aristotle here hints at an argument Anaximander could have used against Thales’ views above: Suppose that water has definite properties. Other materials also have definitive properties, but there is no property that all things have, and some properties have opposites, such as wet and dry, hot and cold, big and small. However, if everything arises from water, everything must have the property of water. But if everything has the property of water, let's say wetness, then an infinite material with the property of wetness would destroy the opposite property of dryness. However, dryness is a property of some things. So, by reason (And a little Aristotlian logic unknown to Anaximander) some S is not P contradicts the claim that All S is P.
Thus, Anaximander's rejection of Thales is rooted in a conceptual breakthrough: recognising that the fundamental principle of reality cannot possess any definite qualities because any definite quality would exclude its opposite. The Apeiron, being indefinite and boundless, escapes this problem, Anaximander believes, by being the source of all properties without being limited to any one of them. Thus, we have a proto-metaphysical theory. However, the Apeiron being outside of all things makes it difficult to describe; hence, the description given to it may be the limits of the language available. However, one description that should be clear is the Apeiron’s divinity: ageless, eternal and in motion (DK12A15).
Nevertheless, having established the Apeiron against Thales, the existence of opposites that refute Thales needs to be accounted for. Let us take the opposites, hot and cold. How can these be accounted for? It is recorded that Anaximander holds a ‘birthing principle’ for the opposites:
He declares that what arose from the eternal and is capable of giving birth to hot and cold was seperated off at the coming to be of the kosmos, and a kind of sphere of flame grew around grew around the dark mist of the Earth like bark from a tree. This was broken off and enclosed creating the sun, moon and stars (DK12A10).
According to this passage, the apeiron seems to have created both hot and cold as the primary division. Furthermore, a process of separation governs the kosmos. Yet, how can this be if the apeiron itself is neither hot nor cold? I cannot answer this as there is nothing to clarify what Anaximander understood by ‘giving birth to’, but I suspect that if two things are equally born, one will not hold power over the other as they are equal. Yet this raises a further issue: how can the uniformity of the Apeiron account for the world's diversity?
Anaximander uses this ‘birthing principle’ (we may call it) to account for this, together with the seperation thesis we can charitably consider the unifed apeiron as a starting process, a generative field that allows differentation over time where the opposites are emergent properties within the system.
As support for this charitable account, Anaximander also has a comment about natural processes:
From where things have their origin, there too they must pass away according to necessity, for they pay penalty and retribution to one another for their injustice in accordance with the order of time” (DK12B1).
This seems to me to introduce a moral principle that governs the kosmos: things arise and perish due to the laws of balance and retribution. Hot does not replace cold, rather hot ‘pays penalty’ to cold and vice versa. This implies some striking ideas. First, the universe is self-regulating, where natural processes follow an intrinsic moral (perhaps ‘legal’ is a better word) law. Second, opposites are in constant conflict and resolution, thus the world is not static, but has fundamental change; which leads to the third implication: change happens according to necessity due to an underlying rationalilty. If this is acceptable, Anaximander anticipates the Stoic idea of universal law.
Now just as I did with Thales, I will put a philosophical argument forward that I believe puts Anaximander’s views in good standing:
To be understood, reality must have a foundation, an archê, from which all things originate. Yet if this foundation were something determinate, like water or fire, it would contain fixed properties. But all things contain opposites: hot and cold, wet and dry, light and dark. If the archê were something determinate, it would favour its own qualities over others, and in doing so, it would annihilate its opposites. A universe governed solely by fire would leave no room for cold, just as a universe of water would drown the dry. But opposites exist. Therefore, the archê cannot be something definite; it must be something beyond all determination that does not impose one property at the expense of another. It must be boundless, indefinite, and without limits; the name for this is the Apeiron.
The Apeiron is eternal, for if it had a beginning, it would have come from something else, and that something else would then be more fundamental. But the archê is, by definition, the first principle, so it cannot have a prior cause. The Apeiron is also in constant motion, for only that which moves can generate the world of change we observe. But if the Apeiron is indefinite, how can it give rise to a world of distinct and opposing elements? The answer lies in separation. The Apeiron births the opposites: hot and cold, wet and dry, day and night. They emerge as pairs, ensuring that neither dominates the other. According to Anaximander, the first opposition to arise was heat and cold, and it is from this initial distinction that the cosmos is structured.
The world is not created as myth suggests, nor does it arise from a single fixed material. Instead, it is generated through the process of division and conflict. However, conflict alone does not sustain the universe; it must be governed by order. Opposites do not simply battle for dominance; they follow a law of retribution, paying “penalty” to one another in cycles of change. Day does not defeat night but yields to it. Summer does not destroy winter but makes way for its return. This balance is not dictated by gods or chance; it is embedded in reality. It is necessary that all things that arise pass away, returning in due time to the Apeiron.
Thus, the world is self-regulating, operating not through divine intervention but through necessity. And necessity does not mean chaos; everything is part of a process of equilibrium and restoration. Just as in human affairs, where injustice demands retribution, in nature, excess must be corrected. Too much heat leads to cold, and too much growth leads to decay. In this way, the universe is governed by a kind of cosmic justice, an eternal law that ensures the cycle of birth and destruction remains balanced.
Anaximander presents a vision of reality that is structured and lawful, not divine or arbitrary. The world arises from a principle of balance, with the Apeiron as both the source and destination of all things. It is the infinite womb of reality, generating the cosmos and ensuring that opposites emerge, struggle, and reconcile.
Thus, Anaximander teaches us that the first principle must be neither visible nor tangible but something beyond all forms, something that generates rather than is generated. And though we may not perceive it directly, we see its workings in the ceaseless motion of nature, the changing seasons, and the rise and fall of all things. The cosmos is an ongoing process of emergence, conflict, and return; in understanding this process, we explain the world.
If I understand him correctly, Anaximander presented a bold and daring metaphysical theory. Maybe that is why later thinkers abandoned his views in favour of those of his pupil, Anaximenes. Who we come to in pt III.