Download The Elements of the Ionian Philosophers

Jonathon Orsi
PHL301H
Prof. Waterfall
6 October 2011
The Elements of the Ionian Philosophers
With the natural world as a starting point, each of the five Ionian philosophers adopted
one fundamental element as a basic building block for everything else. The fundamental
elements which they chose were mostly the material substances of fire, water, air, and earth, with
one philosopher choosing instead the abstract concept of infinite. Though there are only
fragments of their sayings and quotes through various ancient authors, we can make an educated
guess as to what they thought and then analyze how they reasoned their conclusions. The
following will briefly outline each Ionian philosopher's fundamental element and critique any
reasons that might have led them to have chosen it.
First, I will describe why it is anachronistic to say that each Ionian philosopher adopted
one fundamental element as the basic building block of nature. This is because of the
uncertainties with translating ancient Greek words into English. The meaning of any Greek word
may not translate properly into any English because of the difficulties in finding words with the
exact same definition. For instance, the word arkhē, which will be mentioned later in this work,
is left untranslated in A Presocratic Reader as it can mean "originating point" or "first principle"
(Hackett, 16, 2.2). This term is said to have been used first by Anaximander, thus the philosopher
Thales may not have considered his water as an arkhē. The meaning that can be conveyed by
using the English term "fundamental element" can only be a close approximation of the original
ancient Greek term, and this may distort how we should consider each of the philosophers' ideas.
The first philosopher, Thales, chose the element of water. There are no sayings attributed
to Thales for why he would choose water over any other. Aristotle posited that Thales may have
seen that "the nourishment of all things is moist, and that even the hot itself comes to be from
this and lives on this," and so concluded that all things must be created from it (Hackett, 15,
2.1.5). Thales also believed that the earth rested entirely on water (Hackett, 15, 2.1.6). For this
reason, he may have concluded that since water is the very bottom of everything, it must be the
foundation of everything above it. But this reason alone is prone to skepticism and again
Aristotle comments that “he says this just as though the same argument did not apply to the
water supporting the earth as to the earth itself” (Hackett, 15, 2.1.6). These reasons do not give
much support to Thales’ fundamental element to be water.
Air, or aēr in Greek, is the primary element for Anaximenes (Hackett, 19, 2.3.1). He
believed that it was unlimited but not indeterminate. There are no concrete reasons why
Anaximenes chose aēr over the others, he only explains the processes which transforms it into
other elements. He stated that when aēr is even it is invisible and from this point it turns into fire
if it dissolves and into winds if it condenses (Hackett, 20, 2.3.24). Its invisible appearance and
abundance around us could have been the reason why he chose aēr as the fundamental element.
All living things also breathe aēr and Anaximenes thought that it was what the soul was made
out of (Hackett, 20, 2.3.22). Most of his statements, however, simply describe how aēr
transforms into other elements but do not explain why it is the fundamental element in the first
place. It seem as though if we reverse any of the processes in which aēr transforms into any other
element, any other element could be shown as the fundamental element also. Thus, it doesn’t
seem aēr should have any priority over any other element.
Earth is the next fundamental element which Xenophanes adopted, as he stated "all things
are from the earth and all return to the earth" (Hackett, 35, 4.17). He also stated that we all come
to be from a mixture of both earth and water, perhaps suggesting that only life comes to be when
water is added to earth (Hackett, 36, 4.23). It is possible that earth needs something else in order
to create life and if there is evidence of sea life on land, then sea life must have also come from
the earth when it was mixed with water. This, unfortunately, only gives evidence to the fact that
water once covered a larger portion of the earth’s surface. Instead, this could give support to
Thales decision of choosing water as the fundamental element, as it proves that there was water
covering everything at one point in history and that it is also necessary for life.
Of the last philosopher who chose a material substance, it can be claimed that Heraclitus
believed fire to be the fundamental element, as he stated "this kosmos... none of gods nor
humans made... was always and is and shall be: an ever-living fire..." (Hackett, 45, 5.45). He also
stated, though, "fire lives the death of earth and aēr lives the death of fire", perhaps contradicting
the previous quote, or that the ever-living fire is somehow fundamentally different from a normal
fire that we experience(Hackett, 46, 5.51). Any evidence as to why he chose fire as the
fundamental element is speculative, but it does seem to play an important role as he mentions it
multiple times. He does claim that all things can be turned into fire and fire into all things, thus
making fire some sort of conduit for change (Hackett, 46, 5.49). This is very obscure though, just
as most of his sayings are, and only makes sense if we stretch the significance of his words, thus
it isn’t a very convincing reason for fire to be the fundamental element.
Finally, Anaximander believed not in a tangible fundamental element, but in an abstract
concept which he called the infinite, or apeiron in Greek. The apeiron is the arkhē, originating
point or first principle, and he was the first to call it this (Hackett, 16, 2.2.9). Perhaps
Anaximander witnessed each element not as transforming into each other, as water evaporating
into air, but that each of them simply constructed into a certain form and then deconstructed
afterward. Reasons for him believing this could be taken from his statement, "the things that are
perish into the things from which they come to be" (Hackett, 17, 2.2.9). Material things become
and have form, and then decompose back to formlessness. Compared to the rest of the Ionian
philosophers, Anaximander’s reasons for choosing the apeiron as the fundamental element seem
more plausible, but that’s only because he doesn’t state that it is determinate in the first place,
making it impossible to prove or disprove.
If any of the Ionian philosophers had any good reasons for giving one fundamental
element priority over another, it is hard to say. Most do not supply much reasoning for their
choice; each seem to be arbitrary, and each theory they give seems to be ad hoc for whichever
element they chose. None of them explicitly state why they chose an element, but give
explanations on how their element transforms into or generates the others. Anaximander’s
apeiron does have its advantages, but this only comes in the form of not being refutable or
provable. It could be that we are incorrectly terming these as fundamental elements and this is
misconstruing how we are supposed to regard each philosopher's ideas. There may be some
meaning in ancient Greek that English cannot express and we are unable to understand these
philosophers’ ideas accurately. Nonetheless, even though their views on the world may not have
been correct, their first attempts at describing the world through natural processes, and not
supernatural gods, must still be respected.
Works Cited
Hackett. A Presocratic Reader: Selected Fragments and Testimonia. Ed. Patricia Curd. Trans.
Richard D. McKirahan. Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 2011