Fido the Yak

Professor Marc Cohen teaches that the apeiron (ἄπειρον) of Anaximander should not be thought of as "infinite" but as "indefinite." John Burnet presents the contrary view. Let me stick with "indefinite" for a moment. Cohen calls Anaximander a monist, as most scholars do. Is the indefinite as archê consistent with monism? Can we say whether the indefinite pertains to the one or to the many?

Cohen gives us the Anaximander fragment recorded by Simplicius: " ... out of which come to be all the heavens and the worlds in them. The things that are perish into the things out of 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, as he says in rather poetical language." The greek for "The things that are perish into the things out of 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" is ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσίς ἐστι τοῖς οὖσι͵ καὶ τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ χρεών· διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ δίκην καὶ τίσιν ἀλλήλοις τῆς ἀδικίας κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου τάξιν (Elpenor). The connection between this fragment and apeiron is controversial, but I'll assume that there is one for the sake of argument. Is saying that being has committed an injustice (adikia) tantamount to saying that being operates outside the law? Arguably Anixamander means for apeiron to encompass being, such that any lawless operation would only be temporary. Being pays for its injustice with finitude. But how could being thus be answerable to apeiron? Either aperion is a first principle of being, or being operates outside the law. For both to be the case, we would have to assume something like "being encompasses its own annihilation," and yet Anaximander seems to be saying that anhiliation encompasses being, in the form of a retribution for being outside the law. Does being own its annihilation?

Just supposing that finitude is outside of being, being then would be apeiron, or it would obey apeiron as a first principle. The choice between "indefinite" and "infinite" thus appears crucial. I can say I am indefinitely here more easily than I can say I am infinitely here. Is this ultimately a distinction without a difference? I can't decide.

Labels: Anaximander, Burnet, Cohen

posted by Fido the Yak at 1:37 PM.