Talk:Anaximander

Carl Sagan on Anaximander ?!?!

Something tells me that if we are really to claim that Anaximander performed the "first known scientific experiment" (a very vague statement to begin with), that we should have a stronger reference than Carl Sagan. Just a thought.CarmenAutre (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Y'All Come Back Now, Heah?

Anaximander's fragment indicates that he thought that definite individual things should never have come into being out of the indefinite origin. If they do attain existence, they must, in time, return to their indefinite origin, as is right and just. "And the source of coming-to-be for existing things is that into which destruction, too, happens 'according to necessity; for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice according to the assessment of Time' as he describes it in these rather poetical terms."' '(Theophrastus) 205.188.117.73 19:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington == == ==]]

Incorrect Image

The Image Accompining this artice is from Raphael's School of Athens and it is unlikley thet the figure Represents Anaximander.

The Characher shown here is part of a group, the Central Charachter of which is most likely Pythagoras, therfore this charachter copying off Pythagoras, cannot be Anaximander, but is more likely to be Archytas if a name is to be given to him.

More Likely, Raphel intend this figue to represent a Generic Pythogarean

An image (apperently) of Anaximander is here http://www.to-life.se/anaximander.gif

--Inkiwna 09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the character is traditionnaly identified as Boethius. However, due to some resemblance with the image mentionned above (a bust of Anaximander), some came to consider it could represent Anaximander. The comment under the picture should provide this information. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 17:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange sentence in Known Works section

It is also mentioned in the wikipedia article on Evolutionism, correctly or not, that Anaximander was the first ancient thinker to touch upon the idea of evolution. Though no quotes or writings from Anaximander himself are shown on the page to support this.

This bizarre fragment seems out of place in both the section and the article, and doesn't seem to conform to the requirements of encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. Anyone else agree that this should be removed? Thanks in advance. Cromag 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anaximander's ideas on the origin of man is supported by Pseudo-Plutarch in Doctrines of the Philosophers (V, 19), by Censorinus in De Die Natali (IV, 7) and by Hippolytus of Rome in Refutation of all Heresies (I, 6), just to name a few. All theses references report Anaximander's claim that man came from the sea, either living or looking as a fish, or living inside a fish providing protection until he was able to protect himself. Of course, it is way too early to speak of evolution in the darwinian sense, but the philosopher must have based his views on the resemblance between human and fish embryos. So in that matter, yes, he was the first thinker to consider some kind of evolution. After all, he also claimed that in the beginning, the Earth was covered with water and only with evaporation the sea gave way to land. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 17:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "arche" in Anaximander's writing?

The article claims that "arche" was "a word first found in Anaximander's writings, and which he probably invented". This is pretty controversial. Several prominent classical scholars dispute it including John Burnet, Jonathan Barnes, and the trio Kirk, Raven & Schofield. The claim is based on an explanation by Simplicius, which is often interpreted as meaning, not that Anaximander was first to use the word "arche", but that he was first to use the term "apeiron". Many scholars believe that there is no evidence to think that any of these early philosophers used "arche" at all, at least as it was later used by Aristotle. Isokrates 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isokrates. Since we have no text coming directly from Anaximander, we cannot claim that he ever used the word ἀρχή / (arkhế). However, Simplicius introduces his fragment with mention of the first use of the word ἀπείρων / (apeírôn) to designate the original principle or "arche". Simplicius probably borrowed this attribution from Hippolytus's Refutation of all heresies (I, 5). — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Simplicius and every other ancient source on Anaximander I have been able to find refer to his original principle as τὸ ἄπειρον (to apeiron - the infinite). In the article I have therefore changed the name accordingly. --Fabullus 10:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aniximander

The mention also known as Aniximander seems based on nothing. Could anyone justify its use ? In no language have I met his name with that spelling. Unlike the hebrew and arabic languages, Ancient Greek used vowels and in all the ancient texts, we refer to him as Ἀναξίμανδρος. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted

Since I helped a lot in writing the French article (a featured article), I thought I'd give a hand with its English counterpart. I think my English is fine, however I need someone to check the article for syntax, grammar, style conventions, or any typo that might have remained. (Didyaknow, after 2 zillions hours spent on a page, it totally disappears???) Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 10:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, great work by the way. Skomorokh 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Please see hidden comments in text for questions/issues.

More sources - GA comments

Please add more sources. I just had a brief look at this. Many sentences are not sourced. Please source them and renominate this for GA. Thanks --Aminz 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail see where. Each paragraph has or is a reference! Could you be more specific and use {{verification needed}} where it applies? Thanks. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your cursory review, Aminz, but I believe that you are overlooking the policy referred to in Wikipedia:Citing sources which states that "Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" (emphasis in original). I have re-examined this article, and while each sentence could be sourced, I don't think that is necessary to meet the Good Article standard. Accordingly, I will seek a review of your assessment. Argos'Dad 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have sought review of this decision. Argos'Dad 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As a result of a month long discussion of the decision to fail the article, there was no consensus to overturn the decision of the original reviewer. Thus, the original failure of the GA nomination stands. If you would like to see the archive of this discussion, go to: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 21. That discussion contains several fixes which need to be made before the requirements of WP:WIAGA are met. Once those fixes are made, please feel free to renominate the article at WP:GAC. Happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Apeiron (cosmology) contains no references and much of the info is already here. Either somebody needs to cite sources or they should just be merged. 24.4.253.249 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Though he may have been first to use that, it doesn't exclusively have to do with Anaximander. Dictouray 03:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't Merge: I agree with Dictouray; the article needs references aside from Anaximander's -- Corvus 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the merge proposal tag. As everyone else said, there are good reasons for having Apeiron (cosmology) as a separate article from Anaximander. If nothing else, the fact that there are 21 different foreign language versions of that page is a good indication that it deserves an independent existence. Singinglemon (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Titles of his works

The titles of his works are in accusative (Γης περιοδον instead of Γης περιοδος and Σφαιραν instead of Σφαιρα). I think there is no need for that. In the Suda dictionary, where his works are listed, they are in accusative besause of the structure of the phrase ("he wrote [+accus.]"). When listed like that, they should be in nominative. I will fix them (you can always revert, if I'm wrong).--Archidamus 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

anaximander

Anaximander is said to be a greek philosoper bu he was born in Miletus (Turkey). Howcome he was greek then? he lived in ionian state. I wonder about this matter. If anyone has comment, i would be happy. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.33.229 (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Roots-Links

Anaximander's term "apeiron"(endless-having no limit), is similar to "chaos",the original state of existence,according to greek mytholology.(M.O.Sullivan:The four seasons of greek philosophy).This was a "gaping void",an "abyss"(having no bottom)and is mentioned by Hesiod (8th cent.B.C) in Theogony:"And there,all in their order are the sources and ends(greek word:peirata) of gloomy earth and misty Tartarus and the unfruitfull sea and starry heaven.It's a great gulf...............would not reach the bottom". According to Xenophanis(6th cent.B.C):"Here we see the end(peras) of the earth near our feet by the air,but downwards earth reaches apeiron"<DK B1>.Pherecydes of Siros(6th cent.B.C) referring to the origin he names it "ocean" but also "chaos",like a formless matter which can be diffentiated and create things.<UNESCO Encyclopedia.Vol.2-1972:Sir Leonard Wooley>.Therefore we notice that the term "apeiron" is connected with the greek mythology.The old myth in Hesiod is possibly a recast of some earlier source in Near East saga,but is more likely to be lingering traces from the Mycenean tradition than the result of oriental contacts in Hesiod's own time..There is also a remarkable fragment from D.Laertius attributed to Thales,the teacher of Anaximander:"What is divine?What has no beginning,neither end",which propably led Anaximander to his final decision. It is almost irresistible that Anaximander by making apeiron(the boundless)into the principle of all things,has started on a high level of abstruction,therefore some authors suspect eastern(Iranian)influence but Hesiod was the first who made a similar abstruction because life comes out from the indefinite,the void.It must be noticed that the mysterious fragment "Whence things have their origin.........according to the order of time" can be translated in different ways.Aetios transmits a different quotation."Everything is generated from apeiron and then it returns there again".It's possible that Anaximander tried to combine two different ways of thought.The first one dealing with apeiron is metaphysical(and can lead to monism) and the second dealing with mutual changes is physical.Both these aspects affected the greek way of thought.Each individual had unlimited potentialities,but there was a limit to his most violent ambitions..(Nothing in excess).A lot of greek myths which teach that you cannot go over your limit and the Homeric epics(hybris=arrogance) are older than Anaximander.But he introduced the polar attraction between the opposites genesis-decay, existing-destruct of existing which led to the philosophy of Heraclitus(5th century BC). We must notice that some similar ideas for a primordial substance of all beings can be found in Hindu beliefs(Brachman),allthough there are significable diferrences.The substance of all things is called 'Brachman'.In the Hindu mythology Brachman creates all gods,is transformed to the world,and then he becomes God again."Brachman has no beggining neither end,it exists beyond 'being'(sat) and 'not being'(asat)".."Brachman is void.Joy is the same thing as void.Void is the same thing as joy"( All the written texts appear in the 5th century BC.)There is no evidence of recarnation Hindu beliefs and of reward or punishment in a future life in Anaximander beliefs. In China the similarity has to do with the theory of opposites,and the mutual changing between elements.The balance between the basic polar attracted opposites (yin-yang) gives prosperity.Their alternation gives time.<Richard Wilhelm:"I Ching.The book of changes". > —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Goumas.Greece--62.1.144.229 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC) 94.65.252.159 (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Anaximander

It is incorrect to say that nature is ruled by laws. The sum total of the laws IS the nature. The laws are not sparate from nature. By nature we cannot mean the material Universe or that which it contains. We cannot ignore the immaterial laws of nature. Since the laws are static while nature is dynamic we must accept that the static laws are only a part of nature. The other part is motivation for change. The motivation acts on both, the material and the immaterial parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.212.58 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Recommended edit

I'd advise getting rid of the last line (the singing anecdote) from the Biography section. It adds nothing to the biography. 128.250.5.245 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please demonstrate that the developments in philosophical thinking in the Hellenic World during the so-called "Axial Age" are analogous to the progression of thinking in Persia, India, China, etc. during the same time period using evidence. Thanks for being a dear. 68.197.57.239 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of name

The meaning of Anaximander's name in Greek seems to be a claim that he was not trust-worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.18 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)