Talk:Anaximander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Anaximander was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 4, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anaximander article.
Article policies


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
more information

Contents

[edit] Y'All Come Back Now, Heah?

Anaximander's fragment indicates that he thought that definite individual things should never have come into being out of the indefinite origin. If they do attain existence, they must, in time, return to their indefinite origin, as is right and just. "And the source of coming-to-be for existing things is that into which destruction, too, happens 'according to necessity; for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice according to the assessment of Time' as he describes it in these rather poetical terms."' '(Theophrastus) 205.188.117.73 19:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Bruce Partington == == ==]]

[edit] Incorrect Image

The Image Accompining this artice is from Raphael's School of Athens and it is unlikley thet the figure Represents Anaximander.

The Characher shown here is part of a group, the Central Charachter of which is most likely Pythagoras, therfore this charachter copying off Pythagoras, cannot be Anaximander, but is more likely to be Archytas if a name is to be given to him.

More Likely, Raphel intend this figue to represent a Generic Pythogarean

An image (apperently) of Anaximander is here http://www.to-life.se/anaximander.gif

--Inkiwna 09:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the character is traditionnaly identified as Boethius. However, due to some resemblance with the image mentionned above (a bust of Anaximander), some came to consider it could represent Anaximander. The comment under the picture should provide this information. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 17:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange sentence in Known Works section

It is also mentioned in the wikipedia article on Evolutionism, correctly or not, that Anaximander was the first ancient thinker to touch upon the idea of evolution. Though no quotes or writings from Anaximander himself are shown on the page to support this.

This bizarre fragment seems out of place in both the section and the article, and doesn't seem to conform to the requirements of encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. Anyone else agree that this should be removed? Thanks in advance. Cromag 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anaximander's ideas on the origin of man is supported by Pseudo-Plutarch in Doctrines of the Philosophers (V, 19), by Censorinus in De Die Natali (IV, 7) and by Hippolytus of Rome in Refutation of all Heresies (I, 6), just to name a few. All theses references report Anaximander's claim that man came from the sea, either living or looking as a fish, or living inside a fish providing protection until he was able to protect himself. Of course, it is way too early to speak of evolution in the darwinian sense, but the philosopher must have based his views on the resemblance between human and fish embryos. So in that matter, yes, he was the first thinker to consider some kind of evolution. After all, he also claimed that in the beginning, the Earth was covered with water and only with evaporation the sea gave way to land. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 17:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The term "arche" in Anaximander's writing?

The article claims that "arche" was "a word first found in Anaximander's writings, and which he probably invented". This is pretty controversial. Several prominent classical scholars dispute it including John Burnet, Jonathan Barnes, and the trio Kirk, Raven & Schofield. The claim is based on an explanation by Simplicius, which is often interpreted as meaning, not that Anaximander was first to use the word "arche", but that he was first to use the term "apeiron". Many scholars believe that there is no evidence to think that any of these early philosophers used "arche" at all, at least as it was later used by Aristotle. Isokrates 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isokrates. Since we have no text coming directly from Anaximander, we cannot claim that he ever used the word ἀρχή / (arkhế). However, Simplicius introduces his fragment with mention of the first use of the word ἀπείρων / (apeírôn) to designate the original principle or "arche". Simplicius probably borrowed this attribution from Hippolytus's Refutation of all heresies (I, 5). — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Simplicius and every other ancient source on Anaximander I have been able to find refer to his original principle as τὸ ἄπειρον (to apeiron - the infinite). In the article I have therefore changed the name accordingly. --Fabullus 10:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aniximander

The mention also known as Aniximander seems based on nothing. Could anyone justify its use ? In no language have I met his name with that spelling. Unlike the hebrew and arabic languages, Ancient Greek used vowels and in all the ancient texts, we refer to him as Ἀναξίμανδρος. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 16:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help wanted

Since I helped a lot in writing the French article (a featured article), I thought I'd give a hand with its English counterpart. I think my English is fine, however I need someone to check the article for syntax, grammar, style conventions, or any typo that might have remained. (Didyaknow, after 2 zillions hours spent on a page, it totally disappears???) Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 10:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, great work by the way. Skomorokh 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in April 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Psp 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC); Galena11 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: ukexpat 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see hidden comments in text for questions/issues.

[edit] More sources - GA comments

Please add more sources. I just had a brief look at this. Many sentences are not sourced. Please source them and renominate this for GA. Thanks --Aminz 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail see where. Each paragraph has or is a reference! Could you be more specific and use {{verification needed}} where it applies? Thanks. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your cursory review, Aminz, but I believe that you are overlooking the policy referred to in Wikipedia:Citing sources which states that "Wikipedia:Verifiability says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" (emphasis in original). I have re-examined this article, and while each sentence could be sourced, I don't think that is necessary to meet the Good Article standard. Accordingly, I will seek a review of your assessment. Argos'Dad 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review

I have sought review of this decision. Argos'Dad 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As a result of a month long discussion of the decision to fail the article, there was no consensus to overturn the decision of the original reviewer. Thus, the original failure of the GA nomination stands. If you would like to see the archive of this discussion, go to: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 21. That discussion contains several fixes which need to be made before the requirements of WP:WIAGA are met. Once those fixes are made, please feel free to renominate the article at WP:GAC. Happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

Apeiron (cosmology) contains no references and much of the info is already here. Either somebody needs to cite sources or they should just be merged. 24.4.253.249 20:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


I don't agree. Though he may have been first to use that, it doesn't exclusively have to do with Anaximander. Dictouray 03:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't Merge: I agree with Dictouray; the article needs references aside from Anaximander's -- Corvus 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the merge proposal tag. As everyone else said, there are good reasons for having Apeiron (cosmology) as a separate article from Anaximander. If nothing else, the fact that there are 21 different foreign language versions of that page is a good indication that it deserves an independent existence. Singinglemon (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titles of his works

The titles of his works are in accusative (Γης περιοδον instead of Γης περιοδος and Σφαιραν instead of Σφαιρα). I think there is no need for that. In the Suda dictionary, where his works are listed, they are in accusative besause of the structure of the phrase ("he wrote [+accus.]"). When listed like that, they should be in nominative. I will fix them (you can always revert, if I'm wrong).--Archidamus 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)