Aspasia of Miletus was likely from Miletus but as her name implies she could have been anyone and born anywhere beyond the limits of Athens. For all we know, the “of Miletus” was added to give her ideas an air of authority since Miletus preceded Athens as a centre of philosophical thought.
Before 500 BC, Miletus was the greatest Greek city in the east. It was the natural outlet for products from the interior of Anatolia and had a considerable wool trade with Sybaris, in southern Italy. Miletus was important in the founding of the Greek colony of Naukratis in Egypt and founded more than 60 colonies on the shores of the Black Sea… In addition to its commerce and colonization, the city was distinguished for its literary and scientific-philosophical figures, among them Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Hecataeus.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Miletus Miletus is credited with producing the first “western” philosopher.There is some debate, however, concerning the identity of the first “western” philosopher.
Anaximander (c. 610 – c. 546 BCE) of Miletus was a student of Thales, and recent scholarship argues that he, rather than Thales, should be considered the first western philosopher owing to the fact that we have a direct and undisputed quote from Anaximander while we have nothing written by Thales of Miletus.
https://www.ancient.eu/Anaximander/ It is suggested that everything that was written by Thales was lost but Aristotle was familiar with his ideas.
Doubts have always existed about whether Thales wrote anything, but a number of ancient reports credit him with writings.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/ Traditionally regarded as the first Western philosopher and mathematician, Thales of Miletus (a Greek colony on the west coast of present day Turkey) lived c. 585 BCE. He accurately predicted the solar eclipse of May 28, 585 BCE and was known as a skilled astronomer, geometer, statesman and sage. Thales, it is said, was the first to ask the question, “What is the basic ‘stuff’ of the universe” and, according to Aristotle, claimed the First Cause was water because, among other attributes, water could change shape and move while still remaining unchanging in substance. There are no known writings by Thales and all that is known of his life and work is through what we have written about him by others.
Both Internet Encyclopedia and Ancient History Encyclopedia stress that the ideas of Thales were completely original, and although I agree, I also feel that all ideas are inspired by something. My view is that the flow of philosophical ideas did not begin nor end in Miletus. It is merely that we know within the texts of future philosophers the academics admire that both Thales and Anaximander were held in high regard. Like Aspasia, whoever she may have been, there were likely a great number of individuals who inspired the flow of philosophy. Where it truly began no one can really know. What we can discern, however, is that the trade of goods would also result in the trade of ideas. It is highly likely the wealth in Miletus, as a result of trade, supported an emerging class of thinkers who were, in turn, inspired by other thinkers from other places.
I speak a lot about the evolution of the human species because there can be no denying how the flow of information and ideas can evolve commerce, social systems and humanity, but it requires economic prosperity. One could make the argument that the arrival of economic stability to a region brings with it the luxury of free time required among the more affluent to spur creative thought. But, if the affluent among humanity focuses merely on the accumulation of wealth perhaps based on the superficialness of appearances, there is little to inspire change within a peoples so to evolve beyond more animalistic tendencies that reflect the survival of the fittest mindset. And, for better or worse, societies tend to hold those among the affluent in high regard which can result in the exclusion of the ideas from those who may lack the same affluence. The prioritisation of the material can compromise the value of contribution, and it could be that tendency that could have relegated philosophy to the past rather than to the present.
There is also an argument to be made, however, that religion and science have also played their roles in diminishing the perceived need for philosophical thought.
Religion offers simple answers regarding the goodness of the soul in that one merely does what one is told. I would argue, however, that while religion may teach people how to live according to a religious leader’s interpretation of an ancient text, philosophy can inspire people to evolve and think for themselves. I perceive a fluid kind of spirituality in philosophy that can be absent from organised religions that demand strict obedience. Religion tends to be like stone in its unchanging nature over time. Philosophy, though, has the potential to be like water so to flow through time and continually change how it is societies prosper in terms of bettering the kinds of humans that exist. That is achieved not with one great thinker, but with a thread of thought that evolves and is nurtured over time. I believe there is no true beginning for philosophy and there can never be an end. But, many would disagree.
The focus on the material tends to push the need for future philosophical thought to the side in favour of scientific inquiry. But, science is limited to what is within the material and forces that may be measured such as gravity, may not be limited to simply a mathematical equation. The scope of the natural forces within the universe may very well be trivialised in the confinement to patterns of numbers that aim to limit existence to human understanding. Philosophy does not aim to limit but rather to explore and push the boundaries of established thought. The problem is, we have all been taught that science and mathematics is the end rather than a new beginning for the exploration of our universe. It is one interpretation among many within a plurality of truth.
I feel somewhere in the middle of the meandering of philosophical thought that was likely far more expansive than we could ever imagine within the history of humanity came Thales and Anaximander, and I shall briefly explore how they are believed to have perceived the origin or principle of existence.
The claim that Thales was the founder of European philosophy rests primarily on Aristotle (384–322 BCE), who wrote that Thales was the first to suggest a single material substratum for the universe—namely, water, or moisture. According to Aristotle, Thales also held that “all things are full of gods” and that magnetic objects possess souls by virtue of their capacity to move iron—soul being that which in the Greek view distinguishes living from nonliving things, and motion and change (or the capacity to move or change other things) being characteristic of living things.
Thales’ significance lies less in his choice of water as the essential substance than in his attempt to explain nature by the simplification of phenomena and in his search for causes within nature itself rather than in the caprices of anthropomorphic gods.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thales-of-Miletus I would argue that the force of magnetisation held within it a natural force of the universe and it is that within which Thales saw something sacred, because that is the thread of similarity that likely connects to Thales’ perceptions of water. To be perfectly honest, I question the accuracy of Aristotle’s interpretation of Thales’ work. Although there is indication Thales did write some of his ideas down, others could have easily been passed down orally, or by word of mouth, so I feel I need to perceive the basic concepts separate from Aristotle’s accounts even though Aristotle is one of the most reliable sources.
He [Aristotle] recorded: ‘Thales says that it is water’. ‘it’ is the nature, the archê, the originating principle. For Thales, this nature was a single material substance, water. Despite the more advanced terminology which Aristotle and Plato had created, Aristotle recorded the doctrines of Thales in terms which were available to Thales in the sixth century B.C.E., Aristotle made a definite statement, and presented it with confidence. It was only when Aristotle attempted to provide the reasons for the opinions that Thales held, and for the theories that he proposed, that he sometimes displayed caution.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/#H3 But, I am interested not in Aristotle’s perceptions. I am interested in the way Thales perceived natural phenomena. The concept of water as the origin or principle and my speculative magnetism as a “sacred” expression of the universe reveals a possible desire to comprehend natural phenomena as forces of nature rather than the whims of personified gods. In other words, I think Thales was inspired by nature and the natural world not only in terms of materiality but also in terms of immateriality. And, that perception of immateriality can can be seen in the theories of his pupil, Anaximander.
According to Aristotle and Theophrastus, the first Greek philosophers were looking for the “origin” or “principle” (the Greek word “archê” has both meanings) of all things. Anaximander is said to have identified it with “the Boundless” or “the Unlimited” (Greek: “apeiron,” that is, “that which has no boundaries”). Already in ancient times, it is complained that Anaximander did not explain what he meant by “the Boundless.”
https://www.iep.utm.edu/anaximan/#H2 So, while Thales indicated the origin or principle of all things was water, Anaximander created a new interpretation with “the Boundless.”
Before I engage with the concepts, I think it is important to first highlight the complexity of these concepts in terms of language. What the Greek words mean today and what they meant during the time of the philosophers is different. Language and the understanding of it changes over time. And, it is also important to understand that a lot of the nuance of language can be lost in translation from Greek to English but also between cultures.
…Some have pointed out that this use of “apeiron” is atypical for Greek thought, which was occupied with limit, symmetry and harmony. The Pythagoreans placed the boundless (the “apeiron”) on the list of negative things, and for Aristotle, too, perfection became aligned with limit (Greek: “peras”), and thus “apeiron” with imperfection. Therefore, some authors suspect eastern (Iranian) influence on Anaximander’s ideas.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/anaximan/#H2 And, that takes me back to Thales. Many perceive Thales’ use of water as the origin or principle in terms of materiality rather than how water acts. The limiting of Thales’ concept to the boundaries of materiality does not capture the natural forces within water and does not really connect with the interpretation of the magnetic force. Just like with water, to focus on the magnets rather than the magnetisation denies a perspective of immateriality. Water and magnets have nothing in common, but the natural forces have everything in common. And, arguably, it is the natural forces within the universe that Anaximander defined as “the Boundless.”
Naturally, this is all speculation on my part, but I wish to highlight the thread of similarity because it is within that thread or that flow of philosophical thought one can see the evolution of human thought and perceptions. And, simultaneously, also perhaps see the minimising of the complexity within concepts when one individual’s perception is elevated above all others. That is why I tend to speak a lot about the plurality of truth, because when the plurality of truth is lost due to the desire to look for one kind of answer, it is a lost opportunity to expand the thinking of humanity. And, that can be seen in the interpretation of Anaximander’s concept of “the Boundless” in Aristotle’s “Physics.”
“Everything has an origin or is an origin. The Boundless has no origin. For then it would have a limit. Moreover, it is both unborn and immortal, being a kind of origin. For that which has become has also, necessarily, an end, and there is a termination to every process of destruction”
https://www.iep.utm.edu/anaximan/#H2 All material matter has a beginning and an end, according to this interpretation, so it is established “the Boundless” is not a thing. Yet, it is perceived as immortal and with no limit which is reminiscent of Greek gods so there is still an element of personification. I would argue, however, that “the Boundless” is not like a god but rather more like the force of power a god is perceived to possess. I am of the opinion “the Boundless” is a collection of natural forces that serve as the foundation of all existence. In other words, material matter exists because those forces preceded it. The way I perceive it is that the natural chemical reaction that created water is one of the fundamental forces of the universe. Once water was created, that force no longer was necessary so evolved into the material matter that is water. Although water is matter, the force that created it is what would be part of “the Boundless.” And, one could argue that water embodies that natural force within it in how it moves, changes and functions on earth. As such, “the Boundless” is neither unborn nor born, mortal nor immortal, but rather a building block of life itself. And, with the creation of matter it is given the opportunity to evolve its purpose. It plays a role in how the natural world works so has a presence in all creative and destructive forces.
Another perception of “the Boundless” indicates:
Several sources give another argument which is somehow the other way round and answers the question of why the origin should be boundless. In Aristotle’s version, it runs like this: “(The belief that there is something Boundless stems from) the idea that only then genesis and decay will never stop, when that from which is taken what has been generated, is boundless”
https://www.iep.utm.edu/anaximan/#H2 The limit upon perception of materiality is very apparent here, I think. The natural forces of the universe include life and death. Although the material matter created can embody the force of creation, it is limited by its materiality. As such, material matter is enlivened by “the Boundless.” In other words, material matter only exists for as long as “the Boundless” makes it so. It is not that life and death never stop or that life and death occur. “The Boundless” is what, I would argue, is the very essence of existence that permeates the material world as an immaterial collection of forces. Material matter is always limited by its materiality, and I would argue, “the Boundless” as a collection of forces knows no limit when all the forces work together but every individual natural force has its purpose. In other words, each natural force within “the Boundless” is tied to and therefore dedicated to fulfilling its purpose for being.
And, the final perspective of “the Boundless” I shall discuss is as follows:
It turns on one key word (in Greek: “êdê”), which is here translated with “long since.” It is reproduced by Aristotle: “Some make this (namely, that which is additional to the elements) the Boundless, but not air or water, lest the others should be destroyed by one of them, being boundless; for they are opposite to one another (the air, for instance, is cold, the water wet, and the fire hot). If any of them should be boundless, it would long since have destroyed the others; but now there is, they say, something other from which they are all generated”
https://www.iep.utm.edu/anaximan/#H2 There is an assumption that the elements would destroy one another, but the transformative qualities of matter demonstrate the balanced nature of “the Boundless.” As I stated previously, I feel “the Boundless” is a collection of natural forces dedicated to a purpose and within that objective lies the balance of the forces of the universe. The forces that encompass “the Boundless” do not exist in conflict but rather in harmony by fulfilling purpose and therefore maintaining balance.
All three perceptions associate “the Boundless” with some kind of materiality, but, as I have established, I believe “the Boundless” encompasses the natural forces of our universe and exists beyond the grasp of science, religion and, as has been demonstrated, philosophy as well. The very tendency to create limits can deny the complexities of truth and that can destroy the flow of philosophical thought over time. No one person has all the answers. And, it is time we continued the exploration of the concept of the origin or principle initiated by Thales and his pupil, Anaximander.
I feel “the Boundless” is the immaterial essence of existence. It is the unfathomable mechanics of how life and all that exists not only came into existence but also may no longer exist or perhaps continues to exist. And, its importance in terms of human existence lies in the human connection with the universe through the possession of a soul. I believe anything that is born, evolves or changes in some way and dies has a soul. That includes humanity, animals, vegetation and the very earth itself. In other words, the entirety of the natural forces within the universe are what comprise “the Boundless.”
Comentarios