Under construction...
...................................................................................
For those of you who didn't read my last essay, I will give you a quick, partial synopsis of Anaxamander's philosophy, specifically pertaining to his concept of 'The Apeiron'. --- dgb, April 11th, 2009.
From the internet...
............................................................................
Anaximander (c. 610–c. 546 BC)
Greek astronomer and philosopher. He claimed that the Earth was a cylinder three times wider than it is deep, motionless at the centre of the universe, and that the celestial bodies were fire seen through holes in the hollow rims of wheels encircling the Earth. According to Anaximander, the first animals came into being from moisture and the first humans grew inside fish, emerging once fully developed.
He was born in Miletus, in what is now Turkey, and was a pupil of Thales. He is thought to have been the first to determine solstices and equinoxes, by means of a sundial, and he is credited with drawing the first geographical map of the whole known world. He believed that the universe originated as a formless mass containing within itself the contraries of hot and cold, and wet and dry, from which land, sea, and air were formed out of the union and separation of these opposites. Perpetual rotation in the universe created cosmic order by sorting heavier from lighter matter.
Overall, he seems to have shared the early Greek philosophical urge to explain the universe with a tiny number of general laws.
This article is © Research Machines plc 2009. All rights reserved. Helicon Publishing is a division of Research Machines plc.
How to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, add the site to iGoogle, or visit webmaster's page for free fun content.
...............................................................................
From the internet....Free Essays....Anaxamander and 'The Apeiron'
Well-known for his theory of Apeiron, or the unlimited, Anaxamander pursued the changes of the Earth. He basically thought that apeiron compensated for the many changes the Earth undergoes. As a fragment from Anaxamander says, “the unlimited is the first principle of things that are. It is that from which the coming-to-be takes place, and it is that to which they return when they perish, by moral necessity, giving satisfaction to one another and making reparation for their injustice, according to the order of time.” Coming to be is the separation of opposites and does not involve any change in the natural being of a substance. Anaxamander thought that it was neither water nor any other substance, but it is of entirely different nature than that in which the unlimited exists. He believed that all things existed in some place. Whether they were absent or conspicuous was irrelevant; they still existed. He believed that qualities came into existence, vanished away, only to return again. Anaxamnder took into consideration that “there was a storehouse or reservoir from which the qualities that now confront us have ‘separated off’ and into which, when their contraries come forth in time, they will go back; the process being repeated in reverse, and so on in never-ending cycles.” Anaxamander, unlike most philosophers of this time, assessed that the world was created from air, not water. He assumed that everything was created from nothing. This nothing, however, was actually the unknown. The unknown, as Anaxamander defines it, can best be described as the other half of what is. The undetermined is what is not and cannot be seen. Equally as important are water, land, and fire that were created by the density in the air. Each of these three things, as seen from Anaxamander’s point of view, were the origin of all the rest of what exists. Water, of course, was the origin of life. From this water, first came fish that would evolve into what is now man.
.................................................................................
The Second Imaginary Meeting Between DGB and Anaxamander....
DGB: The last time we were together, two days ago, Professor Anaxamander, I was trying to ask you the question: If the world is 'unarticulated', 'undifferentiated' where it comes from -- and goes back to -- in 'The Apeiron' to use your word, which I interpret to mean something like 'Chaos', and if slowly or quickly The Apeiron articulates and differentiates itself into the world as we know it, the world that we can see before our eyes, why in your words, would the Apeiron differentiate itself into 'twos', or more specifically,into 'opposites', as you put it, that try to conquer and defeat each other, one side 'winning' and becoming 'dominant' in the world, while the othe side -- the other bi-polar opposite -- retreats to the sidelines again, back into 'The Shadows' again, back into the undifferentiated world of The Apeiron?. Why would this happen according ot your philosophy.
Anaxamander: Well, to be fair to you Mr. Bain, or Mr. DGB, and to the philosophical world as a whole, I think you know that I didn't answer that question. I simply saw the world around me, described what I saw, and hypothesized about what I didn't see. I didn't engage in 'causal explanations' -- I examined the 'what'; not the 'why' of human existence and the existence of life on earth. I left that question for others to follow me. Why don't you address that question to one of my oldest indirect students -- Professor Heraclitus. Or to the student who you named your philosophical treatise after -- Professor Hegel. He seemed to be very interested in the answer to that question.
Or better still, Mr. Bain, since you seem to have at least a decent overview of all our respective philosophies -- why don't you tell me your theory of why the Apeiron seems to 'divide into twos', 'divide into opposite polarities if you will' to either fight with each other, and/or to 'negotiate' with each other and/or to 'come together in 'blissful dialectic-democratic harmony' to use your words, Mr. Bain.
Because yes, most may think I am dead, but I am not dead -- what goes around, comes around -- I am still alive and very well, thank you very much -- alive and living in The Apeirion where I can watch the world continuing to evolve -- and at least partly destroy itself -- alive and watching you, Mr. Bain, as you play with my philosophy, indeed, I may not agree with everything you say, but I can certainly feel a significant part of my dialectic spirit pulsating through your arteries.
Indeed, it is inspiring to me, gratifying to me, to know that my philosophy is deemed by some people to contain enough 'wisdom' that it is still influencing different philosophers -- even as the world evolves into the 21st century some 2600 year after I left the earth and receded back into the Apeiron.
So, you are right Mr. Bain, I didn't really hypothesize why 'Chaos'(The Apeiron) started to articulate itself, organize itself, differentiate itself, as different things, animals and processes entered this world 'two by two' if you will. (Almost sounds like 'Noah's Ark'. -- dgb.) So tell us Mr. Bain, expand on my theory, bring it into the 21st century -- assuming you agree with what I said -- and tell us why the world is 'dualistically and dialectically divided' with different parts of the world seeking either to 'conquer and/or destroy each other' and/or alternatively -- 'negotiate', 'associate', and come to terms with each other, in some form of integrative dualistic-dialectic peace and harmony.
DGB: Well, before we start talking about 'two by twos' and 'bi-polarities', let us first talk about the difference between 'power-dialectics' and 'negotiated-integrative-dialectics'.
'Power Dialectics' can also be called 'POP' Dialectics -- as in 'Power Over People' Dialectics. Alternatively again, it can be called 'Either/Or' Dialectics. 'Either we do this my way, or I will squash you, conquer you, destroy you.'
'Negotiated-Integrative Dialectics' can also be called 'AND' Dialectics -- as in 'Associative-Negotiated Dialectics' -- or alternatively again 'Democratic Dialectics' where two opposing factions attempt to come together in a 'working compromise solution' to a particular problem and/or conflict. Democracy is built on this principle, America is built on this principle, Canada is built on this principle -- of Democratic or Negotiated Integrative Dialectics. However, let us not be fooled into thinking that even in a so-called 'Integrative Democracy' that Power Dialectics doesn't still take place, doesn't still function as a huge factor in democratic dialectics, every waking moment of every day.
In American Government and Canadian Goverment both Democratic Dialectics and Power Dialectics are going on, all the time, at the same time, as opposing factions (Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Capitalists, Socialists...) work to 'outmuscle', 'overpower', 'conquer' each other even as they are also working towards negotiated, integrative compromise-solutions to partisan conflicts.
In the example of the Somalian pirates and the kidnapped American Captain which just resolved itself yesterday, there was a clear division between two different American factions that were working on the kidnapping problem at the same time: 1. the 'dialectic negotiator(s)' who were looking for a settlement with the pirates that would free the Captain in a manner that didn't involve 'caving in to blackmail'; and 2. the 'dialectic power tacticians' -- the Navy SEALS -- in particular, the 'snipers' under instructions from their leader(s) -- whose job it was to look for a clear shot at the pirates and who fired simultaneously when given the 'execution order' from their leader in a situation of 'perceived, imminent danger to the Captain'. In goverment and in war, this is an example of how 'Negotiated Democratic Dialectics' and 'Power Dialectics' work hand in hand with each other -- or against each other -- looking for 'answers to dualistic-dialectic partisan conflicts'.
Power Dialectics was the area that you specialized in, Professor Anaxamander -- you saw how, over and over again in the world, opposing factions are always striving to 'defeat' or 'conquer' or 'destroy' each other. Your well-known indirect student -- Professor Heraclitus, in contrast, as well as Lao Tse and The Han Philosophers in China started to emphasize the idea of Democratic Dialectics -- the law of 'supply and demand', the law of 'integrative needs and need-fulfillments'.
Professor Heraclitus was the first Western philosopher to articulate the idea that 'opposites attract' and that 'opposites need each other' -- it isn't just a case of 'opposites wanting to control each other, conquer each other, defeat each other, destroy each other'. Similarly, in China, Lao Tse was arguing that 'yin' (feminine energy, estrogen...) needs 'yang' (masculine energy, testosterone) and 'yang' needs 'yin' and the two are 'healthiest' when they integrate harmoniously together, 'unhealthiest' when one is dominating the other or visa versa.
In Ancient Greece, Sparta believed in power dialectics, Athens believed in democratic dialectics, and the two 'City-States' warred with each other for many years each trying to 'Will to Power' their own particular Ideological Partisan Philosophies and Politics.
Even today, we can easily say that The American Republican Party is a ideological descendant of Sparta, Greece while the American Democratic Party is an ideological descendent of Athens, Greece.
Anaxamander: Okay, Mr. DGB. How does what you are talking about here compare and/or contrast with Hegelian Dialectic Theory?
DGB: Well, the first thing we have to understand about Hegel is that he was very difficult to read and understand -- leading to many 'ambiguities' and different ways of 'interpreting Hegel'. So really, the only thing I can give you here is my own 'DGB interpretation and evaluation of Hegel' on Easter Monday, April 13th, 2009. And perhaps I can even compare -- with some 'DGB Creative Extrapolation' Hegel's 'Idealistic-Deterministic' Dialectic Theory with your own Power-Dialectic Theory, Professor Anaximander.
There are certain 'metaphysical truths and/or theories', Professor Anaxamander, that you simply did not indulge in or engage in. In this regard, I do not want to engage in any sort of 'DGB Revisionist Philosophical History'. What you said, Professor Anaxamander, you said, and what you didn't say, you didn't say. I wish no more from you today than what you delivered to the world in the 500 BCs. And if I wish to engage in 'Anaxamander-Revisionist-Philosophy', then I will own up to that and call it something like 'Anaxamander-influenced-DGB Creation Philosophy' -- and not pretend that this is your philosophy coming out of my mouth.
For example, I ask the question: 'Is there a God of the Apeiron?' Is there a God of the Apeiron that created life on earth?
If there is a Creation -- a wonderful, intelligent Creation like life on Earth -- it is very hard to believe, that somewhere, in the shadows of life, in the backdrop of life, there isn't -- or wasn't at least at one time -- a 'Wonderful, Intelligent Creator' who created this creation of 'life on earth'.
Now to be sure, this gets us into very metaphysical, very mythological, spiritual-religious oriented philosophy which is not the way you philosophized about the 'creation of life on earth' back in the 500BCs. I haven't heard any mention of 'Gods' in any recital of your philosophy, Professor Anaxamander. However, one must admit, that if one has any 'religious' and/or 'mythological' inclinations, then it is -- or can be -- very easy to jump from your concept of 'The Apeiron' to -- 'A God ruling over The Apeiron -- and Ruling over The Creation of Life on Earth from the Backdrop of The Apeiron as Chaotic Unorganization, Undifferentation, Unarticulation of Differences that can be viewed as The Holding Pen of all Life Before the raw materials in this holding pen become differentiated and articulated into different organizational structures and processes that we see here around us in Life on Earth...and in other parts of the Articulated Universe...'
DGB Philosophy can work with or without 'Gods as Mythological Entities' but in general, more and more, I am finding that I like to work with them as 'creative-projective-identifications-and-constructions' of man that may or may not have any 'epistemological truth' lying behind them -- probably not -- but if we/I take accountability for this or these 'God-Constructions', we can find out things about ourselves, and about our own Self-Ideals.
Now, for argument sake, Professor Anaximander, let us imagine that there was and/or is indeed a 'God of The Apeiron' who is also the most powerful 'God of The Universe' and the most powerful 'God of Life and Death on Earth'....Call this 'God of Everything' -- simply 'God' if you wish. Or since I am a 'multi-dialectic philosopher' who likes to work with 'multi-dialectic Gods in Greek Mythology' that can perhaps better help us shed light on man's 'multi-dialectic-psychology-philosophy and the 'multi-dialectic structures and processes here on Earth' -- both 'natural' and 'man-made' -- to repeat, since I am this type of a multi-dialectic philosopher, let me call this 'God of The Apeiron, the Universe, and of Life and Death on Earth' -- 'Zeus'. Zeus was simply the most powerful God in Greek Mythology.
Now we could engage in the 'Theory of Creation' as postulated by historians and interpreters of Greek Mythology. We may do this some time but not now. Similarily, we could engage in the 'Biblical Theory or Myth of Creation, which we will probably do shortly.
But right now at this moment, I wish to let my 'imagination go wild' and engage in an 'Anaxamander-DGB Theory/Myth of Creation'.
Let us imagine that Zeus -- the most intelligent and powerful of all Gods -- was bored and was putting together a 'jigsaw puzzle' -- the 'puzzle and architecture of life and death'. Being as brilliant as he was, and creative as he was, he put this jigsaw puzzle together and finished it rather quickly. This was partly 'satisfying' to his 'Gigantic Narcissistic Ego' -- but only partly satsifying. Again, he was bored. He wanted some more 'excitement' in his life and in his role as ruler and leader of all Greek Gods and of all life and death on Earth.
Now this next part is a little 'crazy' perhaps, even a little 'sadistic'. But this reflected a part of Zeus's personality, as it does a part of man's personality, perhaps, mythologically speaking, coming from 'God's or Zeus' seed'.
If you are as old as I am -- or older -- you might remember playing 'alleys or marbles' when you were a kid. This seemed to be mainly a 'boy's game' and perhaps our first introduction to 'The Dialectic Between Narcissistic and Ethical Capitalism'. I played alleys when I was in about Grade 5 and 6. Depending on how good or bad you were at 'shooting marbles' and/or 'setting up your marbles to be shot at', you would either become the 'Donald Trump' of marbles, or the opposite, or something in between.
I don't remember the exact particulars about this -- or the exact nature of the psychology behind it -- but every now and then you would hear one of your fellow alley players yell: 'Scrambles'! And all of the alleys or marbles including 'smokies' and 'crystals' and 'boulders' in some kid's bag of marbles would go 'flying out of the bag' and onto the play yard at school in a hundred different directions with all the alley players in the area going 'scrambling after them'. The objects of some alley person's past alley collection had just been 're-distributed' amongst other alley collectors in the school yard...
Well, let's imagine that Zeus, now bored again, after having finished putting together his 'gigantic jig-saw puzzle and archtectural plan of life and death' suddenly engaged in a 'Godly game of Scrambles'...and having first 'breathed life into all the different parts of his jig-saw puzzle of life', then 'scrambled' this jig-saw puzzle all over the Earth, or worded otherwise, scrambled his 'Godly genetic DNA' all over the Earth, not together in one piece, in one put-together jig-saw puzzle, but rather in millions, indeed billions, of different pieces or parts of this Godly jig-saw puzzle containing Zeus' Godly genetic DNA...
Now perhaps Zeus or God did indeed 'make man in God's/Zeus' own image' -- with idealistically, the potential to be his most 'prized and intelligent' student, and perhaps the only student of life that was/is capable of putting the 'jig-saw puzzle of life' back together again the way that God/Zeus originally made it -- before 'He/She' 'scrambled' it.
Finally, this is starting to sound a bit like Hegelian Dialectic Idealism and his chase of 'The Absolute' and 'Godliness' through the process and logistical dynamics of the dialectic. A mythological integration of sorts between your philosophy, Professor Anaxamander, Hegel's philosophy, and my DGB Philosophy.
However, there are some significant differences between Hegel's Dialectic Philosophy and my own DGB Post-Hegelian, Humanistic-Existential Dialectic Philosophy.
Specifically, Hegel was a 'Pre-Existentialist' -- paving the road for existentialism to evolve in his footsteps and the footsteps of those who followed him -- Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietsche, Sartre, Heidigger, Foucault, Derrida.. but not quite there yet himself. Hegel's fixation seemed to be with 'knowledge' -- his idea of 'the meaning of life' was the chasing of 'Absolute Knowledge or the Knowledge of God -- through the process of the dialectic (power-dialectics and/or democratic dialectics) -- and in so doing, man would eventually 'become close to God' by 'gaining God's wisdom'.
In this regard, Hegel was a 'Grand Abstractionist' -- and this set up what might be called the 'Existentialist' and 'Materialist' Protests that followed shortly behind him.
..................................................................
Soren Kierkegaard
Soren Kierkegaard rebelled against Hegel's Grand Abstractionism (even as Kierkegaard was partly a Grand Abstractionist himself). He believed that life had to be 'lived concretely'. Kierkegaard's philosophy is generally viewed as being the beginning of 'existentialism' although writers like Schopenhauer and Dostoevsky also had their influence around this time.
Soren Kierkegaard: 'Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.'
..............................................................................
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and devil are fighting there, and the battlefield is the heart of man.
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Deprived of meaningful work, men and women lose their reason for existence; they go stark, raving mad.
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Happiness does not lie in happiness, but in the achievement of it.
Fyodor Dostoevsky
If there is no God, everything is permitted.
Fyodor Dostoevsky
................................................................................
Arthur Schopenhauer
Most philosophers -- Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche (and myself) tend to be 'Grand Abstractionists' and Schopenhauer was no different. Still, Schopenhauer's philosophy ('The World as Will and Representation') was like Kierkegaard's philosophy, very much an anti-thesis of Hegel's. Firstly, it defied the Kantian-Hegelian dialectic as all became encompassed in 'The Cosmic Will'. Secondly, life was very concrete, and more often than not, 'brutishly and violently concrete' as people pursued pleasure and caused pain and indulged in what I have called 'Power-Dialectics'. One needs to 'escape to the theatre and the arts to escape the ugliness and tragedy of life' according to Schopenhauer. In the theatre, you may at least experience a type of 'cathartic, therapeutic emotional release'. And/or conversely, you have to 'escape to a Buddhist-like philosophy that chooses not to want, not to engage in wishful fantasies but rather to abstain from wanting in order to abstain from being hurt. (Sounds like something written by someone who was deeply hurt -- probably most by his dad's suicide when he was a boy. -- dgb editorial comment).
A man can be himself only so long as he is alone.
Arthur Schopenhauer
A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants.
Arthur Schopenhauer
A man's delight in looking forward to and hoping for some particular satisfaction is a part of the pleasure flowing out of it, enjoyed in advance. But this is afterward deducted, for the more we look forward to anything the less we enjoy it when it comes.
Arthur Schopenhauer
A man's face as a rule says more, and more interesting things, than his mouth, for it is a compendium of everything his mouth will ever say, in that it is the monogram of all this man's thoughts and aspirations.
Arthur Schopenhauer
After your death you will be what you were before your birth.
Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Almost all of our sorrows spring out of our relations with other people.
Arthur Schopenhauer
As the biggest library if it is in disorder is not as useful as a small but well-arranged one, so you may accumulate a vast amount of knowledge but it will be of far less value than a much smaller amount if you have not thought it over for yourself.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Because people have no thoughts to deal in, they deal cards, and try and win one another's money. Idiots!
Arthur Schopenhauer
Boredom is just the reverse side of fascination: both depend on being outside rather than inside a situation, and one leads to the other.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read them in: but as a rule the purchase of books is mistaken for the appropriation of their contents.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Compassion is the basis of morality.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Each day is a little life: every waking and rising a little birth, every fresh morning a little youth, every going to rest and sleep a little death.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Every parting gives a foretaste of death, every reunion a hint of the resurrection.
Arthur Schopenhauer
.........................................................................
Karl Marx
Marx turned Hegel's dialectical-epistemological idealism on its head; opting instead for a 'dialectic-materialist (or anti-materialist) idealism'. Money, private property, and Capitalism, according to Marx, was the root of all evil. It turned man into 'narcissistic-hedonistic monsters' (my words; not his). Move towards Socialism and Communism and you circument all of these terrible 'materialist-Capitialist evils'. (Obviously, Lenin and Stalin didn't get the full Marxian message because I don't think Marx would have advocated 'mass civilian slaughters' nor 'Communist Governments indulging in 'power-dialectics' and behaving just as narcissistically as any preceding form of Capitalist or Feudal System of Government.
Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.
Karl Marx
Capital is money, capital is commodities. By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs.
Karl Marx
Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.
Karl Marx
Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the labourer.
Karl Marx
Democracy is the road to socialism.
Karl Marx
Experience praises the most happy the one who made the most people happy.
Karl Marx
For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him.
Karl Marx
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx
Greek philosophy seems to have met with something with which a good tragedy is not supposed to meet, namely, a dull ending.
Karl Marx
History does nothing; it does not possess immense riches, it does not fight battles. It is men, real, living, who do all this.
Karl Marx
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
Karl Marx
I am not a Marxist.
Karl Marx
In a higher phase of communist society... only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Karl Marx
In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.
Karl Marx
It is absolutely impossible to transcend the laws of nature. What can change in historically different circumstances is only the form in which these laws expose themselves.
Karl Marx
It is not history which uses men as a means of achieving - as if it were an individual person - its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of men in pursuit of their ends.
Karl Marx
.............................................................................
...............................................................................
