Q.1 : Describe the concept of the arche. How does this concept change from Thales to Anaximines to Anaximander?

1. Describe the concept of the arche. How does this concept change from Thales to Anaximines to Anaximander?

I.               Arche.

a.     Beginning, first principle, that which is prior.

b.     To Thales, to Anaximander and Anaximines this was an underlying thing, material cause: stuff things are made out of.

c.      The arche is the unifying principle of the many.

d.     How Aristotle characterizes their understanding of the arche:

                                               i.     Of those who first pursued philosophy, the majority believed that the only principles of all things are principles in the form of matter. For that of which all existing things are composted and that from which they originally come to be and that into which they finally perish—the substance persisting but changing in its attributes—this they state is the element and principle of the things that are. (Metaphysics, 1.3)

II.             Thales: Water.

a.     One thing clear about Thales – Water is the arche.

                                               i.     T said the earth rests on water.

                                             ii.     T said all things full of gods – meaning unclear.

                                            iii.     But testimony from Aristotle is clear that water is the principle.

                                            iv.     Copleston:

1.     The only certain and the only really important point about Thales’ doctrine is that he conceived “things”: as varying forms of one primary and ultimate element.

b.     Aristotle thought Thales water was a material principle/cause.

                                               i.     Aristotle conjectures that Thales’ reasons could have been

1.     “Nourishment, heat, and living organisms are observed to come from moist things, and water is the origin of the moist.”

2.     And that seeds – the origins of things – require moisture.

c.      So, in Thales we have the first philosophical attempt to identify the unifying principle of things.

III.           Anaximander: boundless, indefinite, unlimited (apeiron)

a.     Arguments that the arche is apeiron.

                                               i.     Origin must be boundless.

1.     Generation and decay will never stop.

a.     Anaximander held that motion – generation and decay – is eternal.

2.     If generation and decay have a bounded origin, then they will stop.

3.     So, generation and decay have a boundless origin.

                                             ii.     Boundless is not a contrary. (arguments  from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/anaximan/ )

1.     If the boundless origin was one of the contraries, e.g., moist-dry, hot-cold, it would have long since destroyed its contrary.

2.     The contraries are not destroyed.

3.     So the boundless is not one of the contraries.

4.     Against Thales: the boundless is not water, because then there would be no dryness.

b.     So, the boundless acts similarly like Thales’ water insofar as it is the unifying arche, but can explain the existence of contraries and eternality of motion.

IV.           Anaximines: aēr (usually translated “air” but more like a dense mist than what we think of as air, which is ideally transparent.

a.     Air is the arche.

                                               i.     “As our soul, being air, keeps us together, so do breath and air encompass the whole cosmos.” (Fr. 2)

b.     Offers explanation of how all things come from air:

                                               i.     Air is always in motion

                                             ii.     Changes through condensation and rarefaction.

1.     Rarefaction – gets finer and becomes fire.

2.     Condensation – gets denser and becomes wind-cloud-water-stone.

c.      Comparison to Thales and Anaximander:

                                               i.     Like Thales and Anaximander: air operates as a unifying principle/ arche.

                                             ii.     Like Anaximander: underlying nature is one and unlimited.

                                            iii.     Between Thales and Anaximander:

1.     Air is less definite than water, allowing for contraries.

2.     Air is more definite than apeiron, providing needed unity.