Talk:Anaximander
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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 == == ==]]
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
Categories: Old requests for peer review | B-Class physics articles | B-Class biography articles | B-Class Philosophy articles | Unknown-importance Philosophy articles | Greek articles | B-Class Greek articles needing review | B-Class Greek articles | Unknown-importance Greek articles | Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (French)