Philosophy15 Episode 59: The Anaximander Fragment

hello everyone welcome to philosophy 15

I'm Robert Elise I'm Scott akin we are

the authors of pragmatism pluralism and

the nature of philosophy with ravage and

also the second edition also out with

ravage of why we argue and how we should

these are unscripted conversations among

two philosophy professors about whatever

happens to be on our mind and today

Scott has come to the table with some

thoughts about the fragment that is

attributed to Anaximander buckle up the

pre-socratic philosopher Anaximander

Thalys student yeah it's in fact

considered to be the first quotation of

philosophy in the Western tradition

quoted from simplices commentary on

Aristotle's physics here's how it goes

mine a commander said that appear on the

unbounded the limitless was the arc a

was the was the origin of things the

element of things that are he was first

to introduce this name for the arcade he

says that the arc a is neither water so

denying dailies nor any of the other

things called elements but some other

nature which is appear on again

unbounded out of which come to be all

the heavens and the worlds in them the

things that are perish into the things

from which they come to be according to

necessity for they pay penalty and

retribution to each other for their

injustice in accordance with the

ordering of time that's some heavy biz I

what's at me I don't even understand it

well so I guess the first thought is why

why the unbounded and then why all this

retribution stuff right it looks like

there's sort of two parts to the

fragment I think I have the I think I

get the app here on ok so let's talk

about the operator on then we'll talk

about the the retribution stuff if you

are here's a non

expert reading of that so if you are a

philosopher broadly in that my lesion

what we've now see as the my lesion

tradition these are people who are

looking for the fundamental stuff that

everything else is composed of the RK

the other the arguments one one thing

the beginning both as a temporal

metaphysical kind of beginning but also

as an explanatory beginning in our cases

but everything the bottom yeah the thing

that the X P of the Spade turns once you

get there God right right

if you are in that business of trying to

identify

vrk I could understand why you would

quickly come to see that the standard

candidates like Bailey's and water right

why water won't do it because water is

already to descript

it's already itself a kind of thing and

so you want to say look I can understand

why one would see as a kind of

metaphysical error to say that the RK is

itself a kind of stuff what we can name

and point to and fill our glasses and

pools with so I understand I think the

motivation for in a way making a making

a difference seeing the need for the for

the elemental the metaphysically

elemental to be of a different category

right operon looks to me like does that

the best list the unconstrained what

looks to me like it does that in fact

you might even think that if you say

with dailies that water is the most

basic stuff that's already to descript

because water itself has a nature that

stands in need of explanation the

unbounded the limitless the without

constraint looks like it's the right

level of nondescript Ness that it

couldn't be pointed to right so I

understand that part right so then so

yeah it so as a consequence and and the

contrast with water is really important

there right so and so we'd say look the

reason why water kind of one reason why

families would think that water is a

good candidate is that it looks like it

can take all the manifest form

can be it can be a gas it can be a

liquid it can be a solid so it's got

those things in its favour and that it's

kind of got this plasticity but

nevertheless it's water so you got this

problem it's like why pour water in the

form of water on water and the for a

fire whenever it's burning something

water in the form of wood that turns it

so that it's no longer fire water now

it's just water water and it's wet right

so it's like it looks like water just

now we was supposed to play a kind of an

explanatory role but now that I said

used water in all those cases water

doesn't mean what it meant anymore it

looks like it does too much and that's

the inside that's an incident a

commander has is that like okay water is

supposed to mean something very specific

but whatever I use it in all those cases

it looks like it becomes something less

and less bounded right okay so we see

the arc to that so so far so good right

so that's that's an advance notice by

the way we'll pause for just one second

and say an acts of meanies the third of

the my illusions went to air afterwards

was that back sliding by your reasoning

yes so here's so we'll pause for a

second and say yeah so that seems to be

one of the so and one of these

interpretations is the the the Ave Ron

is a kind of a transcendental like a

transcendental reading of the Ave Ron

it's a kind of a non manifest form

that's got to be sort of at the base of

reality and it can't be like anything

being being with a big beak it might be

like any beings with a small B or

something elemental stuff can itself

have properties right so cuz Venice

night elemental the property yeah okay

so that's but notice by the way that

these guys are all all of these guys are

empiricists and so one of the push backs

is we don't know what we're talking

about whenever we whenever we go to this

Rite was like I don't know what the

unbound it is I don't know what this

looks like whenever an acts of medius

goes to air he's like look this is just

and so you you said like it looks like

it's sort of not descript enough to be

able to have this sort of contradictions

with with water but his response is but

air is really nondescript

right it's kind of not got a lot of

really sort of heavy-duty properties

moreover there's a physical thing that

we can do with there that explains

certain sorts of things extra expansion

and contraction do this and we think

those heat as the expansion of things

and and that we could have even called

making rocks with

felting that gets all pressed together

so there's a kind of so his thought is

yeah I'm better I'm a better materialist

and I'm a better empiricist because it's

still stuff that we can see and have

models for physically okay still doesn't

look to me like it can be the Archaea

because we we can give explanations of

it that's okay yeah and that's and

that's one of the nice things which and

which is that it's not just that water

needs to do this some explaining one

question then is well why is water but

that way right and you can do the exact

same thing with air right yeah and it

looks like you've there's a kind of

category error looming when you say well

what makes the boundless boundless you

know I mean like it looks like the the

operon is playing looks like

Anaximander recognizes that the

elemental stuff has to be stuff in a

different sense of the word stuff right

and that's in some ways kind of what

that two levels thesis with all these

guys are committed to it's like you've

got manifest reality and it's a buzzing

blooming confusion right and then

there's a bottom level that's a kind of

a unity that's a kind of a one kind of

thing and it looks like it just has to

be a different kind of thing for

different unity that seems right so okay

so so far so good so he's he's outpaced

his other my lesion counterparts didn't

best out of three as it is but now that

the second part was this doctrine of

compensation that the the contest is the

contraries pay penalty to each other so

what kind so simply kiyose even

editorialized at the end he says as he

says in rather poetical language oh

simply kiyose is he's a regular he's a

regular editorialize ER that's a that

you get you get it in full bore with

that one so here's a question then what

makes that sound like nonsense what

makes that sound so so strange then well

so that it's no longer I mean the

crucial thing is that the nice thing

about the other physical manifest forms

is that we had physical explanations for

why the changes happened I just don't

understand the normative language that

somehow the decay of the the decay of

thing

that we can point to yeah not the thing

that is the ultimate explanation of the

things that we can point to not the

operon but the towns and chairs and

medium-sized dry good yeah that those

decay because is it it because that

those decayed in some way having to do

with their injustice yeah to there are a

part of their opposites

well it says to their to their yeah to

their element yeah that's exactly the

things that are perishing to the things

from which they come to be according to

necessity for they pay penalty and

retribution to each other now that is

what I don't get so it's not for their

injustice okay so for their injustice is

a part I don't understand why that why

you wouldn't even need to say that but

secondly since all things come from the

a pair on right yeah why is it that

they're paying penalize Able's and chair

is paying penalty to the coffee cups if

of necessity they've returned to that

from which they can't I is it is the

thesis that the tables and chairs

ultimately come from the coffee cups no

it can't be bad it's got to be

everything all the things the things

that they perish into to become

something else

so one reading of this is that the

contraries pay penalty to each other so

the hot and cold the hot things become

cold and hot has paid penalty to cold

bye-bye-bye it's injustice of

eliminating the cold and the cold then

is doing some injustice to hot and

paying and so it's this so again this is

sometimes called the doctrine of

compensation that there that in some

ways what they're doing is that they're

that it's a cycle of retribution between

the contraries that things that are not

in some ways are made not by the things

that are and whenever the things that

are fall into what's not right because

whenever they whenever they become

something that they're not they're

paying penalty to the to those things

that are not and one one thought here is

that if it can't if we if the appear on

has got no determinate physical

properties it cannot be a physical

reason right we have no physical reason

as to why explanation as to why

transitions happen the way they do

there's a law like relation between

these and if it's not going to be a

physical law that explains that like we

have with water or with with air it's

got to be a different kind of law what

kind of law have we got the Lex talionis

an eye for an eye and a tooth for a

tooth and that's the and that's the deep

kind of explanation that's the natural

law that all of there are retributive

inclinations that we have with regards

to each other are really actually

manifestations of a much deeper kind of

normativity in nature right but if it's

this if it's by necessity yes that these

are in competition and in contrast and

in conflict with each other I don't know

what sense it makes for them to say that

they have to pay retribution right yes

so like where is this so what's the

injustice if the thought here is that

we're constantly switching back and

forth of necessity by necessity right so

if it's by a necessity that they do this

well I guess the thought here is that

are they paying retribution by necessity

they're paying retribution for their

hostility towards their honesty yes but

I guess - the opposition is by necessity

that's so in some ways this is a kind of

a question as to what the necessity is

ranging over so the things that are

perishing - things from which they come

to be according to necessity so your

thought here is that look it's an

injustice only if you could have done

otherwise

at least it complicates the idea that

there is some justice that's supposed to

be served by means of this retributive

conflict the retribution is the judge

yes right that the retribution is the

justice why is it why is it moralized at

all if it's driven by something that is

necessary right what is the necessity of

this well how does the fact that it's

necessary how is the fact that it's

necessary consistent with their being a

normative option so so I guess that's so

in some ways this is the this is the

challenge which is if the OP they run

supposed to be our base our base explain

explain er then we have a question then

what is the necessity that makes it so

that these things perish into the things

from which they're right into which

they're going to come to be if that's

the necessity how is that related to the

offing well that's right that looks like

now you've imported another kind of

another kind of MIS RK right another

yeah thing that plays a fundamental

explanatory yeah what yeah so if the if

if they okay if the RK is op a Ron then

why do we have determinate things that

are contrary and they can they must be

switching back and forth that seems the

problem and it also looks like it's not

it's less consistent now with good

materialists oh right I mean this is

this is one of the challenges which is

that it's Amity RK is supposed to be

something that's material still there if

they're there my Legion bonus the the

one thing is still something that's

material but it looks like all the

explanatory stuff is no longer a non

material that's my explanation because

the material thing is not definite

enough for any kind of explanation from

the from the RK from the core from the

earth parts of being right and also the

introduction from whence we don't know

of the normative aspect of this process

also looks like it's not good

materialism oh I think I think that

that's just the argument that is just

that's why it's it's it's something

that's something that's a product of our

nature it's still naturalism Oh

philosophy 15 folks can make philosophy

out of almost anything