Apeiron

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Apeiron (cosmology)
)
For other uses, see Apeiron (disambiguation).

Apeiron (/əˈpaɪˌrɒn/;[1] ἄπειρον) is a Greek word meaning '(that which is) unlimited; boundless; infinite; indefinite'[2] from ἀ- a- 'without' and πεῖραρ peirar 'end, limit; boundary',[3] the Ionic Greek form of πέρας peras 'end, limit, boundary'.[4]

Origin of everything

The apeiron is central to the

arche) is eternal and infinite, or boundless (apeiron), subject to neither old age nor decay, which perpetually yields fresh materials from which everything we can perceive is derived.[5] Apeiron generated the opposites (hot–cold, wet–dry, etc.) which acted on the creation of the world (cf. Heraclitus). Everything is generated from apeiron and then it is destroyed by going back to apeiron, according to necessity.[6] He believed that infinite worlds are generated from apeiron and then they are destroyed there again.[7]

His ideas were influenced by the

Thales (7th to 6th century BC). Searching for some universal principle, Anaximander retained the traditional religious assumption that there was a cosmic order and tried to explain it rationally, using the old mythical language which ascribed divine control on various spheres of reality. This language was more suitable for a society which could see gods everywhere; therefore the first glimmerings of laws of nature were themselves derived from divine laws.[8] The Greeks believed that the universal principles could also be applied to human societies. The word nomos (law) may originally have meant natural law and used later to mean man-made law.[9]

Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction. It adopted apeiron as the origin of all things, because it is completely indefinite. This is a further transition from the previous existing

city states during the 6th century BC.[10]

Roots

In the mythical

Chaos, which is a void or gap. Chaos is described as a gap either between Tartarus and the Earth's surface (Miller's interpretation) or between earth's surface and the sky (Cornford's interpretation).[11][12][13] One can name it also abyss
(having no bottom).

Alternately, Greek

Thales believed that the origin or first principle was water. Pherecydes of Syros (6th century BC) probably called the water also Chaos and this is not placed at the very beginning.[14]

In the creation stories of Near East the primordial world is described formless and empty. The only existing thing prior to creation was the water abyss. The Babylonian cosmology

Enuma Elish describes the earliest stage of the universe as one of watery chaos and something similar is described in Genesis.[15]
In the
Vedic (Hiranyagarbha
) the initial state of the universe was an absolute darkness.

Hesiod made an abstraction, because his original chaos is a void, something completely indefinite. In his opinion the origin should be indefinite and indeterminate.

Pythagoreans:

[...] for they [the Pythagoreans] plainly say that when the one had been constructed, whether out of planes or of surface or of seed or of elements which they cannot express, immediately the nearest part of the unlimited began to be drawn in and limited by the limit.[20]

Greek philosophy entered a high level of abstraction making apeiron the principle of all things and some scholars saw a gap between the existing mythical and the new rational way of thought (rationalism). But if we follow the course, we will see that there is not such an abrupt break with the previous thought. The basic elements of nature, water, air, fire, earth, which the first Greek philosophers believed composed the world, represent in fact the mythical primordial forces. The collision of these forces produced the cosmic harmony according to the Greek cosmogony (Hesiod).[21] Anaximander noticed the mutual changes between these elements, therefore he chose something else (indefinite in kind) which could generate the others without experiencing any decay.[22]

There is also a fragment attributed to his teacher Thales:[23][24] "What is divine? What has no origin, nor end." This probably led his student to his final decision for apeiron, because the divinity applied to it implies that it always existed. The notion of the temporal infinity was familiar to the Greek mind from remote antiquity in the religious conception of immortality and Anaximander's description was in terms appropriate to this conception. This arche is called "eternal and ageless" (Hippolitus I,6,I;DK B2).[25]

Creation of the world

The apeiron has generally been understood as a sort of primal chaos. It acts as the substratum supporting opposites such as hot and cold, wet and dry, and directed the movement of things, by which there grew up all of the host of shapes and differences which are found in the world.[26] Out of the vague and limitless body there sprang a central mass—Earth—cylindrical in shape. A sphere of fire surrounded the air around the Earth and had originally clung to it like the bark round a tree. When it broke, it created the Sun, the Moon and the stars.[27] The first animals were generated in the water.[28] When they came to Earth they were transmuted by the effect of sunlight. The human being sprung from some other animal, which originally was similar to a fish.[29] The blazing orbs, which have drawn off from the cold earth and water, are the temporary gods of the world clustering around the Earth, which to the ancient thinker is the central figure.

Interpretations

In the commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle's Physics the following fragment is attributed direct to Anaximander:

From where things have their origin, there their destruction happens as it is ordained [Greek: kata to chreon means 'according to the debt']. For they give justice and compensation to one another for their injustice according to the ordering of time.

This fragment remains a mystery because it can be translated in different ways. Simplicius comments that Anaximander noticed the mutual changes between the four elements (earth, air, water, fire), therefore he did not choose one of them as an origin, but something else which generates the opposites without experiencing any decay. He mentions also that Anaximander said all these in poetic terms,

eunomia).[33] In Homer's Odyssey eunomia is contrasted with hubris (arrogance).[34] Arrogance was considered very dangerous because it could break the balance and lead to political instability and finally to the destruction of a city-state.[35]

Aetius (1st century BC) transmits a different quotation:

Everything is generated from apeiron and there its destruction happens. Infinite worlds are generated and they are destructed there again. And he says (Anaximander) why this is apeiron. Because only then genesis and decay will never stop.

— Aetius I 3,3<Ps.Plutarch; DK 12 A14.>

Therefore, it seems that Anaximander argued about apeiron and this is also noticed by Aristotle:

The belief that there is something apeiron stems from the idea that only then genesis and decay will never stop, when that from which is taken what is generated is apeiron.

— Aristotle, Physics 203b 18–20 <DK 12 A 15.>

Friedrich Nietzsche[36] claimed that Anaximander was a pessimist and that he viewed all coming to be as an illegitimate emancipation from the eternal being, a wrong for which destruction is the only penance. In accordance to this the world of the individual definite objects should perish into the indefinite since anything definite has to eventually return to the indefinite. His ideas had a great influence on many scholars including Martin Heidegger.

Werner Heisenberg, noted for his contributions to the foundation of quantum mechanics, arrived at the idea that the elementary particles are to be seen as different manifestations, different quantum states, of one and the same "primordial substance". Because of its similarity to the primordial substance hypothesized by Anaximander, his colleague Max Born called this substance apeiron.[37]

Scholars in other fields, e.g. Bertrand Russell[38] and Maurice Bowra,[39] did not deny that Anaximander was the first who used the term apeiron, but claimed that the mysterious fragment is dealing with the balance of opposite forces as central to reality being closer to the quotation transmitted by Simplicius.

There are also other interpretations which try to match both the previous aspects. Apeiron is an abstract, void, something that cannot be described according to the Greek pessimistic belief for death. Death indeed meant "nothingless". The dead live like shadows and there is no return to the real world. Everything generated from apeiron must return there according to the principle genesis-decay. There is a polar attraction between the opposites genesis-decay, arrogance-justice. The existence itself carries a guilt.[40]

The idea that the fact of existence by itself carries along an incurable guilt is Greek (Theognis 327) and anybody claims that surpasses it, commits arrogance and therefore he becomes guilty. The first half of the 6th century is a period of great social instability in Miletus, the city state where Anaximander lives. Any attempt of excess leads to exaggerations and each exaggeration must be corrected. All these have to be paid according to the debt. The things give justice to one another with the process of time.

Justice has to destroy everything which is born. There is no external limit that can restrict the activities of men, except the destruction. Arrogance is an expression of the chaotic element of human existence and in a way a part of the rebounding mechanism of order, because pushing it to exertions causes destruction which is also a reestablishment.[41]

Influence on Greek and Western thought

We may assume that the contradiction in the different interpretations is because Anaximander combined two different ways of thought. The first one dealing with apeiron is metaphysical (and can lead to

Ancient Greek: ἄπειρα apeira, plural of apeiron) and limitable. Everything which exists in the world contains the unlimited (apeiron) and the limited.[45] Something similar is mentioned by Plato: Nothing can exist if it does not contain continually and simultaneously the limited and the unlimited, the definite and the indefinite.[46]

Some doctrines existing in Western thought still transmit some of the original ideas: "God ordained that all men shall die", "Death is a common debt". The Greek word adikia (injustice) transmits the notion that someone has operated outside of his own sphere, without respecting the one of his neighbour. Therefore, he commits

Latin
: arrogare), is very close to the original meaning of the aphorism: "Nothing in excess."

Other pre-Socratic philosophies

Other

pre-Socratic philosophers had different theories of the apeiron. For the Pythagoreans (in particular, Philolaus), the universe had begun as an apeiron, but at some point it inhaled the void from outside, filling the cosmos with vacuous bubbles that split the world into many different parts. For Anaxagoras, the initial apeiron had begun to rotate rapidly under the control of a godlike Nous
(Mind), and the great speed of the rotation caused the universe to break up into many fragments. Since all individual things had originated from the same apeiron, all things must contain parts of all other things. This explains how one object can be transformed into another, since each thing already contains all other things in germ.

See also

References

  1. ^ "apeiron". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary.
  2. Perseus Project
    .
  3. ^ πεῖραρ in Liddell and Scott.
  4. ^ πέρας in Liddell and Scott.
  5. ^ Aristotle, Phys. Γ5, 204b, 23sq.<DK12,A16.>, Hippolytus, Haer. I 6, 1 sq. <DK 12 A11, B2.>
  6. ^ Simplicius, in Phys., p. 24, 13sq.<DK 12 A9,B1.>, p. 150, 24sq.<DK 12 A9.>
  7. ^ Aetius I 3,3<Pseudo-Plutarch; DK 12 A14.>
  8. ^ C. M. Bowra (1957) The Greek experience. World Publishing Co. Cleveland and New York. pp. 168–169
  9. ^ L. H. Jeferry (1976) The archaic Greece. The Greek city states 700-500 BC. Ernest Benn Ltd. London & Tonbridge p. 42
  10. ISBN 0-8014-9293-9
  11. ^ The Theogony of Hesiod. Transl. H. G. Evelyn White (1914): 116, 736-744 online[permanent dead link]
  12. doi:10.5840/ancientphil200121244
    . Retrieved 2016-01-21.
  13. ^ Cornford, Francis (1950). A Ritual Basis for Hesiod's Theogony. pp. 95–116. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  14. ISBN 978-0-521-27455-5
    .
  15. ISBN 0-521-29420-7
  16. ^ O. Gigon (1968) Der Umsprung der Griechishe Philosophie. Von Hesiod bis Parmenides. Bale. Stuttgart, Schwabe & Co. p. 29
  17. ^ <DK 21 B 28>
  18. ISBN 9780415173018
    . p. 39
  19. ISBN 978-0-521-27455-5
    .
  20. ^ Philolaus
  21. ^ Claude Mossé (1984) La Grece archaique d'Homere a Eschyle. Edition du Seuil. p. 235
  22. ^ Aristotle, Phys. Γ5, 204b 23sq.<DK 12 A 16.>
  23. ^ Diogenes Laertius,<DK 11 A1.>
  24. ^ "Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, BOOK I, Chapter 1. THALES (Floruit circa 585 B.C., the date of the eclipse)".
  25. ISBN 978-0-521-29420-1
    .
  26. ISBN 978-0-691-01182-0
    .
  27. ^ Pseudo-Plutarch, Strom. 2, fr.179 Sandbach <DK 12 A 10.>
  28. ^ Aetius V 19,4 <DK 12 A 30.>
  29. ^ Hippolytus, Haer. I 6,6 <DK 12 A 11.>
  30. ^ Simplicius in Phys. p. 24, 13sq.<DK12a9,B1>

    Anaximander from Miletus, son of Praxiades student and descendant of Thales, said that the origin and the element of things (beings) is apeiron and he is the first who used this name for the origin (arche). He says that the origin is neither water, nor any other of the so-called elements, but something of different nature, unlimited. From it are generated the skies and the worlds which exist between them. Whence things (beings) have their origin, there their destruction happens as it is ordained. For they give justice and compensation to one another for their injustice according to the ordering of time, as he said in poetic terms. Obviously noticing the mutual changes between the four elements, he did not demand to make one of them a subject, but something else except these. He considers that genesis takes place without any decay of this element, but with the generation of the opposites by his own movement.
  31. ^ C. M. Bowra (1957) The Greek experience. Cleveland and New York. p. 167–168
  32. ^ C. M. Bowra (1957) The Greek experience. World publishing company. Cleveland and New York. p. 87
  33. ^ L. H. Jeffery (1976) The archaic Greece. The Greek city states 700–500 BC. Ernest Benn Ltd. London & Tonbridge. p. 42
  34. ^ Homer: Odyssey. 17.487
  35. ^ C. M. Bowra The Greek experience. World publishing company. Cleveland and New York. p. 90
  36. ^ F. Nietzsche (1962) Philosophy in the tragic age of the Greeks.. Washington DC: Regnery, Gateway.
  37. ISBN 9781568813295. Retrieved December 2, 2012 – via Google Books. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help
    )
  38. ^ Bertrand Russell (1946) History of Western Philosophy NY. Simon and Schuster
  39. ^ C. M. Bowra (1957) The Greek experience. World publishing company. Cleveland and N. York. p. 168
  40. ^ O. Gigon (1968) Der Umsprung der Griechische Philosophie. Von Hesiod bis Parmenides. Bale Stutgart, Schwabe & Co. pp. 81–82
  41. ^ C. Castoriadis (2004) Ce qui fait la Grece 1. D'Homere a Heracklite. Seminaires 1982-1983. La creation humain II. Edition du Seuil. p. 198
  42. ^ M. O. Sullivan (1985) The four seasons of Greek philosophy. Efstathiadis group. Athens. pp. 28–31 (Edition in English)
  43. ^ C. M. Bowra (1957) The Greek experience. World publishing company. Cleveland and New York. pp. 63, 89
  44. ^ C. Castoriadis (2004) Ce qui fait la grece 1. D'Homere a Heraclite. Seminaires 1982–1983. La creation Humain II. Editions du Seuil. p. 268
  45. ^ <DK B1.>
  46. ^ Plato, Philebus 16c.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apeiron&oldid=1193904598"