Anaximander's Boundless First Principle

1. The role of “the indefinite” or “boundless” in Anaximander’s philosophical system.

Anaximander’s philosophical system, also termed as the theory of Apeiron, is based on the Greek word Apeiron, which is literally translated to “boundless” or “indefinite”. In the Anaximander philosophical system, the first principle of all things is traced back to the Apeiron, which is indeterminate and boundless. This is the element of all existing things from which all beings have come into existence. Instead of other philosophers, like Thales, who saw water to be the first element from beings were originated, Anaximander believed that the Apeiron preceded even water. The significance of the Aperion is that it cannot be limited or bounded or explained and must be accepted as that which is inexplicable, uncreatable and indestructible. Moreover, as the Aperion is boundless, it can be the primary source for everything in creation as it can absorb all opposites within itself. Students seeking a deeper understanding of these concepts may benefit from philosophy dissertation help to further explore Anaximander's ideas and their implications.

Similar device was adopted by Aristotle who also sought to explain the origin of all things. He said that there is something boundless that stems from the idea of creation and decay of all beings. Similar to Anaximander, Aristotle also argued that air and water were not boundless because they were capable of destroying other elements and be destroyed themselves and therefore, these could not be the origin of all beings.

2. Aristotle’s super-lunary and sub-lunary spheres and the significance of this boundary

Super-lunary and sub-lunary spheres were the two spheres into which sensible realities could be distinguished (Reale, 2017). The super-lunary world is the celestial world, on which there can be no corruption, no alterations, no generation, and no augmentation. On the other hand, the sub-lunary sphere or world, is subject to change and corruption and it contains the four classical elements of earth, air, water, and fire (Reale, 2017). This is the area below the moon, while the area above the moon, the super-lunary sphere, is permanent and unchanging.

The boundary between super-lunary and sub-lunary sphere is significant because it explains the position of the earth in the universe, the principle of gravity, and also explains the way that the changes keep occurring in the sub-lunary sphere which is open to corruption and change (Barbour, 1989).

3. The universe (or cosmos) is a ‘plenum’? Which philosophers from Thales to Aristotle held the ‘plenum view’ of the cosmos? Which philosophers disagreed?

According to Aristotle, the universe is a plenum, which means that it is ‘full’ in the literal and physical senses. In other words, the sphere of universe is packed with matter and there is no vacuum. This also means that the universe is finite and not boundless and that there is always something that facilitates movement within the cosmos, which was central to the thesis that motion originated from the heavens and was passed onto the terrestrial region.

Empidocles held the view that reality is a plenum and that in the Cosmos all ingredients are in a motion. Anaxagoras also believed that Cosmos is composed of material ingredients that exist in a vacuumless environment. Parmenides also declared the world to be a plenum.

4. Difference and commonality between Plato and Aristotle

The commonality between Plato and Aristotle was that they both believed that thought was superior to senses and that rationality was endowed in the human being. However, although both Plato and Aristotle thought that thought was superior to senses, Aristotle was the more practical of the two because he believed that human beings had the ability to reason out good from bad but they also had to make a choice based on that reasoning.

The biggest difference between Plato and Aristotle was that Plato believed in the universality of concepts, which led him to espouse the idealist philosophy where the universal ideals could be laid down. On the other hand, Aristotle believed that each concept had to be analysed on its own in order to arrive at the true meaning and nature of the object. Therefore, Aristotle believed in empiricism and observation of the actual phenomenon, whereas Plato believed in though experiments and theorising.

6. Describe the theories of change offered by each of the following philosophers. For each, explain what, if anything, changes and why (or how). Parmenides, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle.

Parmenides believed that everything is part of a single unified and unchanging whole and nothing ever changes. He argued that even if we think that something has changed, that change is an illusion. This argument proceeded from the premise that all change must be an absolute change, which is something that Parmenides could not justify, so he said that there is no change and all change is illusory. This Parmenides explained as follows: if something comes into existence, it must either come from being or non-being, neither of these actually being possible as something could not come from something or something come of nothing. Therefore, change is impossible.

Democritus was the first philosopher to come up with the idea of atom. He believed that atoms could not be changed or destroyed and that all matter came from atoms. In a way, Democritus was responding to Parmenides’ idea that something could not come from nothing by showing that atoms could make up bigger matter. In this way, it could be argued that change was possible.

Plato argued that things or forms do not really change and that what is seen as a change is to be put to change in appearance and not in form. He argued that behind all that seems ever changing and transforming, there is reliability and permanence of form, which never changes. Moreover, Plato also argued that for everything that can be represented, such as, a triangle on a piece of paper, a house, woman, child, and so on, there is a perfect form and this is absolute in nature.

Aristotle believed that things could change and it is possible to come into existence. Anything can change provided that it has three qualities, which are, an underlying subject, a form or a positive property and a lack of that form. To put this into an example, a man who was previously unmusical can change into musical, when the quality of unmusical ceases to exist and the quality of musical comes into existence. In this manner, anything can change. To explain different kinds of changes, Aristotle spoke about accidental and substantial changes. The former comes from change in the substance and the latter comes from generation and destruction of the substance.

7. As thoroughly as you can, contrast the accounts of Plato and Aristotle on the nature and existence of the cosmos, being sure to capture differences in how each uses his account to ‘locate’ change.

According to Plato, the Cosmos was a living being that was endowed with a soul or reason. The Divine Craftsman designed the Cosmos from a pre-existing chaos, and this design used forms as models for objects that are sensible or access to sense and reason. Thus, the Cosmos is a self-contained sphere and it is not subject to decay nor does it need nourishment. The sphere rotates on the axis with Earth being the centre. This Cosmos contains everything in the universe and there is nothing beyond it or outside of it. The extent of Cosmos is the extent of space and there is no space beyond the Cosmos.

According to Plato, the superior god that made the Cosmos, created it out of all the materials provided by the chaos, and that being good, the god fashioned the Cosmos in his own good image. Thus, the four materials of the chaos, Earth, Water, Air and Fire were endowed with a soul and these formed the body of the Cosmos.

It is presumed, though not explicitly stated by Plato, that the Earth is the center of the cosmos, with the other heavenly bodies rotating about it. (Other interpretations of Plato are possible, and we will see later that Copernicus attempted to do just this, though his was a controversial interpretation of Plato). It was Aristotle (384-322 BC) who made explicit the proposition that the earth is the center and does not move, with the sun as well as the moon, planets and stars circling it.

Aristotle spoke about a cosmos that existed in finite form and without any vacuum in the space of the cosmos. This allowed for motion or movement within the cosmos. For Aristotle it was not possible for there to be empty space or vacuum because that would not allow for the movement within the Cosmos. This movement or motion was important because this would allow for the perfect heavenly bodies to control the motion of those that were in the sub-lunar sphere. The super-lunar sphere contained of these heavenly bodies and these were unchangeable and unperishable, whereas, the sub-lunar was composed of perishable bodies made of earth, fire, air and water.

Plato and Aristotle differed greatly on the theory of change, with Plato arguing that things could not change and Aristotle arguing that they can. For Plato, this belief was based on the belief of the unchanging and immutable perfect beings within the Cosmos. On the other hand, Aristotle with his focus on the four elements, was able to locate change in the qualities of the elements when they were replaced by their opposites, that is fire (hot) and water (cold) could be changed when through a combination of both, steam is produced which looks like air.

Bibliography

Reale, G. (2017). A History of Ancient Philosophy II: Plato and Aristotle . SUNY Press.

Barbour, J. B. (1989). Absolute Or Relative Motion?: The discovery of dynamics . CUP Archive .