Through criticism and analysis of ancient traditions, Kahn reconstructs the pattern of Anaximander’s thought using historical methods akin to the reconstructive. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. Front Cover. Charles H. Kahn . Columbia University Press, – Cosmology – pages. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology has 5 ratings and 0 reviews. Through criticism and analysis of ancient traditions, Kahn reconstructs the p.
|Published (Last):||27 November 2013|
|PDF File Size:||10.91 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.17 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
B 27, BB 33; Heracl. Although Aristotle’s words do not rigorously exclude the bizarre possibility that Anaxagoras believed in a pluraHty of worlds, all gener- ated at the same time and never destroyed, their natural implication is that he, like Empedocles, assumed the existence of only one world at any given time. Aristotle’s own distinction in terms of Adyo?
The phrase is a very unusual one for a Peripatetic, and it has been suggested that avravra? Greeo of the Earth However, since the text of Hippolytus has clearly reached us in incomplete form, we must accept here the reading of A. The analysis of this material is necessarily involved, but only by such an analysis can we distinguish the questions on which reliable informa- tion is available from those which have been hopelessly obscured by the nature of our sources.
Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology by Charles H. Kahn
One way out would be to assume that the intermediate principle represents an abstract category, with which the doctrine of Anaximander can be identified as it cer- tainly is at 6. Titles of Hippocratic works cited as Hp. The objection of Simplicius that the article would be required for “our Sun” and “our Moon” is of course unfounded.
Burnet renders the phrase “they survived for a short time,” and compares the doctrine of Archelaus a 4. But the procedure of Aetius is more radical. What can be done, however, is to point out i the confu- sion of anaximaneer doxographic tradition, 2 the vagueness of what Aristotle and Theophrastus where his version can be recognized tell us on the subject, and 3 the weight of certain general considerations against ascribing infinite worlds to Anaximander. Theism and Physical Cosmology.
Sign in to use this feature. For the moon’s Hght, compare Anaximenes a i8: Request removal from index. Sign in to use this feature. For ogigins, in his account of Parmenides in Phys. But I would not subscribe is also emphasized by J. For the anonymous plural rcves with which the view of Anaximander is cited in Arist. Also characteristic of the writer and annd time is the elaborate discussion of the questions, “Whence did men have the notion of gods?
The statement of Gensorinus concerning the formation of men agrees so closely with what Aetius tells us about animals in general The Iliad speaks of the Titans seated in the darkness of Tar- tarus “at the hmits of earth and sea” 0 ff’. So far Hippolytus has mentioned only a single circle of fire, yet now he speaks in general of “the heavenly bodies” to. The details added by Seneca need not be derived from Theophrastus, even indirectly.
Charles H. Kahn, Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology – PhilPapers
Hence when we find traces of such a scheme in Euripides or in the Potidaea epitaph orivins — or in the undated Orphic poems — wc must recognize this as evidence for the diffusion of the Ionian cosmology, not for its pre-existence in the popular imagination.
The stones for the superstructure must be quarried elsewhere, from the firsthand documents of Greek thought in the fifth and fourth centuries. Thus when Aristotle refutes the plurality of worlds in De Caelo 1.
What may be affirmed with certainty, however, is that Anaximander is far more accessible to a modern historian than are such fabulous figures as Thales and Pythag- oras. Aristotle ‘ It is therefore most regrettable that in the separated from the surrounding words which alone latest editions of the Fragmente der Vorsokratiker can specify its meaning.
It is free of the statement that Anaximander’s infinite worlds were so many “gods” 9.
Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology
But in the case of Theo- phrastus, it is impossible to proceed without a critical reconstruction of his text. In addition to these arguments ex silentio, we have the express statement of H. Adnan added it Sep 04, In dealing with Anaximander, this documentary problem is of par- ticular importance. The common traits which these documents present are generally neglected by the ancient accounts of Greek philosophy, which reserve their interest for the points at which one thinker or group of thinkers can be contrasted with another.
Se KLvrjaeojs Kal rrj? Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology, by C. Aristotle’s actual train of thought, however, seems to be somewhat different. The order of subjects is in general that of Simplicius or Hippolytus, our two best sources, but the aim has been to reproduce the order of Theophrastus’ own work, which, I assume, followed Aristotle’s plan for the physical treatises outlined at Meteorologica i.
Borda of the Museo Nazionale in Rome and Mr. For 9 and 20 a single reference is given in the heading since the corresponding texts are listed in one place by Diels.
The Scholiast interprets by to ti’Sos” ‘ Xenoph.
The usual change of vypov to yvpov is, however, more dubious. The spherical earth attributed to Anaximander by D. Size, Position, and Distance of the Rings H. And this unity can receive an historical explanation only if the common features are shown to result by genetic descent from a common source.
Aristotle refers to such an element “in between” on nine different occasions the list is given in the note to 6. There are, furthermore, a surprising number of cases where Aristotle is guilty of strange verbal errors in the interpretation of a text which he cites directly. The text of A.
Open Preview See a Problem? And the ambiguity which surrounds this expression is, I think, definitively resolved by two origuns passages in Simplicius, which show that he has himself understood it to refer to the term dpxTj- The first indication of this is in the words which follow immediately: The Koayioi formed by separating-ofF are therefore only the diverse natural “arrangements” of life on earth, and the meaning of the term in Anaxagoras A 41 is entirely parallel to that in Xenophanes a Unfortunately there is little documentary basis for this attractive result ; the only one of these three numbers known to the doxographers is The task here may be com- pared to that tye the paleontologist, who, from a fossil, can retrace the form of an extinct predecessor of preserved species ; or to that of greem linguist, who reconstructs the parent speech revealed by systematic similarities between the early forms of sister languages.
Kerferd – – The Classical Review 12