Anaximander was quite right for his time to describe this "boundless" matter which can be understood as energy( that is a product of both matter and antimatter)
This is the dominant, Aristotelian version of ápeiron, making of it a (fancied) element (στοιχεῖον), a sort of mass (having one limit at least like Thales' Water and all the rest) instead of exactly none, like implicit in its etymology from a-peira (not from a-peras) meaning "non-liable to be experienced", that is, what's not graspable except by Intellect in its highest function. So, as far as I can see, ápeiron stands alone, incomprehended since 25 centuries of confusion of infinity (ápeiron from a-peira) with the indefinite (ápeiron from a-peras, that is, with all the rest cause there's no finite whatsoever but for common sense and for practical use). [mkp mo05ju17 21a25]
A theory of everything is very popular in physics today and is heavily desired by physicists to give an all-encompassing explanation of the universe. Could we say though that the early Greek philosophers of Ancient Greece were some of the first humans to propose a ‘Theory of Everything’? For example, does Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles (and much more) have a Theory of Everything? Would it be fair or justified to claim that those philosophers all had a ‘Theory of Everything?’ Another area in Greek philosophical thought that could help with answering this question is the idea of the ‘Arche’. This is usually defined as the ‘first principle’ in metaphysical thought (isn’t this what Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles did?). However, it was Aristotle who first defined this term. So, is the idea of a search for the Arche, the principle, an Aristotelian construct?
i think we will never know because we dont have direct access to his full body of work or explanations in his own words, maybe the only difference between anaximander and aristotle in that regard is that we know more about what aristotle had to say.
Aristotle noted later that the Boundless is “the divine [τὸ θεῖον]; for it is immortal and indestructible [ἀθάνατον … καὶ ἀνώλεθρον], as Anaximandros says” . Eternal and ageless are properties of the gods. And Thales' philosophy, on the other hand, was shaped by the cult of Acheloios (or Achelous), son of Oceanus - the deity equated with water in the ancient Greek world Thales' philosophy primary 3 principles are: (1) ὕδωρ (hýdōr, or water) is the ἀρχή (arche, the first principle); (2) the Earth rests on ὕδωρ; and (3) all things are full of gods.
This was actually helpful to me because I don't really understand where this idea of "Rulership" and "Hier *arch* y" comes from. I know it's Ancient. But why did people believe that some people rule over others and that this specialness was associated with "Greatness" or "Goodness" in any sense of the word. You pointed out that Parents rule over children and that this "way of things" can be extended out. It doesn't explain why adults shouldn't rule themselves, but it does point to the origin of the structure.
Remember this is where Anaximander thinks it comes from. If you want a more accurate understanding youd probably want to go to natural history or something like that
Dryness come from air heat and time, what so difficult to understand. Everything comes from water and goes back. Water is concrete. The aperion more fiction the world can do with out...
So dryness cannot be from water, water then fails as the explanation of everything that exists, if water were truly the arche, one should expect all dryness to be erradicated.
This is done so beautifully, easy to understand plus occasionally downright funny. Thank you for making this video!
Nothing of abstract importance is "easy to understand".
[mkp tu06ju17 11a15]
Agreed, thanks for pointing this out to me :) What I really meant was "comparatively easy".
Thanks for your replay but what I was really pointing out to you was my critical comment. [mkp tu06ju17 18a49]
Captivatingly Explained!
Thank you Prof. Footy.
Thank you for the clear explanation
Beautiful review
Anaximander was quite right for his time to describe this "boundless" matter which can be understood as energy( that is a product of both matter and antimatter)
This is the dominant, Aristotelian version of ápeiron, making of it a (fancied) element (στοιχεῖον), a sort of mass (having one limit at least like Thales' Water and all the rest) instead of exactly none, like implicit in its etymology from a-peira (not from a-peras) meaning "non-liable to be experienced", that is, what's not graspable except by Intellect in its highest function.
So, as far as I can see, ápeiron stands alone, incomprehended since 25 centuries of confusion of infinity (ápeiron from a-peira) with the indefinite (ápeiron from a-peras, that is, with all the rest cause there's no finite whatsoever but for common sense and for practical use).
[mkp mo05ju17 21a25]
Footy is wrong. The Apeiron was not thought as "infinite mass" or "material." See Heidegger.
A theory of everything is very popular in physics today and is heavily desired by physicists to give an all-encompassing explanation of the universe. Could we say though that the early Greek philosophers of Ancient Greece were some of the first humans to propose a ‘Theory of Everything’? For example, does Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles (and much more) have a Theory of Everything? Would it be fair or justified to claim that those philosophers all had a ‘Theory of Everything?’
Another area in Greek philosophical thought that could help with answering this question is the idea of the ‘Arche’. This is usually defined as the ‘first principle’ in metaphysical thought (isn’t this what Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles did?).
However, it was Aristotle who first defined this term. So, is the idea of a search for the Arche, the principle, an Aristotelian construct?
Bitch please! This is a bright thought. I agree with you, also this idea leads to the singularity that is undefined begging of everything.
i think we will never know because we dont have direct access to his full body of work or explanations in his own words, maybe the only difference between anaximander and aristotle in that regard is that we know more about what aristotle had to say.
Aristotle noted later that the Boundless is “the divine [τὸ θεῖον]; for it is immortal and indestructible [ἀθάνατον … καὶ ἀνώλεθρον], as Anaximandros says” . Eternal and ageless are properties of the gods. And Thales' philosophy, on the other hand, was shaped by the cult of Acheloios (or Achelous), son of Oceanus - the deity equated with water in the ancient Greek world Thales' philosophy primary 3 principles are: (1) ὕδωρ (hýdōr, or water) is the ἀρχή (arche, the first principle); (2) the Earth rests on ὕδωρ; and (3) all things are full of gods.
Nice work
Ār hey or Ār kay?
Some people say that he is the most important person in the history.
Very nice and humorous. Justice and strife. :P
very nice lecure..
This was actually helpful to me because I don't really understand where this idea of "Rulership" and "Hier *arch* y" comes from. I know it's Ancient. But why did people believe that some people rule over others and that this specialness was associated with "Greatness" or "Goodness" in any sense of the word. You pointed out that Parents rule over children and that this "way of things" can be extended out. It doesn't explain why adults shouldn't rule themselves, but it does point to the origin of the structure.
Remember this is where Anaximander thinks it comes from. If you want a more accurate understanding youd probably want to go to natural history or something like that
Nice
No identity is discernible in the boundless.
Dryness come from air heat and time, what so difficult to understand. Everything comes from water and goes back. Water is concrete. The aperion more fiction the world can do with out...
So dryness cannot be from water, water then fails as the explanation of everything that exists, if water were truly the arche, one should expect all dryness to be erradicated.
Cryptic
This foot man is distracting🙂