Anaximenes of Miletus

Greek philosopher

• Born: Early sixth century b.c.e.
• Birthplace: Probably Miletus (now in Turkey)
• Died: Second half of the sixth century b.c.e.
• Place of death: Unknown

Early Life

The writings of Anaximenes (an-ak-SIHM-uh-neez) of Miletus no longer exist. Thus, knowledge of Anaximenes is based on a few statements made by Aristotle and later writers on the history of Greek philosophy, some of whom quote earlier writers whose work is now lost. A few of these earlier writers show that they had access to Anaximenes’ writings, but it is difficult to determine the veracity of any of their statements. Thus, scholars have almost no reliable information about Anaximenes’ life; not even his dates can be accurately ascertained, and only the most general of assumptions can be made. These biographical assumptions are usually applied to Thales and Anaximander as well as Anaximenes. These men were the most famous thinkers from Miletus, then the largest and most prosperous Greek city on the west coast of Asia Minor.

While they are known only for their philosophical work, it is believed that all three were financially secure and that philosophical thought was for them an avocation. Apparently, Anaximenes was the youngest of the three. Some sources suggest that Anaximenes was the pupil of Anaximander, while others suggest that he was a fellow student and friend. Most scholars place the work of Anaximenes after the fall of Sardis to Cyrus the Great (c. 545 b.c.e.) and before the fall of Miletus (494 b.c.e.).

Life’s Work

Anaximenes’ work must be viewed against the background of contemporary Miletus and the work of his predecessors. Miletus in the sixth century was a flourishing center located between the eastern kingdoms and the mainland of Greece. The city was ruled by a ruthless tyrant, Thrasybulus, whose method of control was to do away with anyone who appeared threatening.

It has been suggested that the emergence of tyranny in Miletus was the crucial factor in the emergence of philosophy, that the need to overthrow the existing myth-centered system of values was behind philosophical speculation. It has also been said that the emergence of philosophy coincides with the emergence of participatory forms of government, the development of written codes of law, and the expansion of the role of nonaristocrats in government through oratory, which encouraged logical argument and objective reasoning. As attractive as these theories may be, they overlook the fact that Miletus itself was under the rule of a tyrant who discouraged participatory democracy absolutely.

It seems more logical to conclude that philosophy became a means of escaping the brutality of the immediate, political world. Travel brought Milesians in contact with Egypt and Phoenicia—and eventually Mesopotamia. Milesians developed an independence of thought that led them to use their knowledge of the pragmatic world gained through observation to see the contradictions in the mythologies of different peoples and to make the leap to a nonmythological explanation of causation and the nature of matter.

The work of Anaximenes was summarized in a single book whose title is unknown. In the fourth century, Theophrastus, Aristotle’s successor, is said to have noted its “simple and economical Ionic style.” One supposes that this comment refers to the shift from writing in poetry to writing in prose. Clearly, Anaximenes was more concerned with content than with the conventions of poetical expression.

Anaximenes wrote that “air” was the original substance of matter. Scholars of ancient history agree, however, that the exact meaning of this statement is unclear. To take the position that all other matter was derived from air, Anaximenes must have believed that air was a changeable substance that, by rarefaction and condensation, was able to take other forms. When rarefied, it became fire; when condensed, it became wind, clouds, water, earth, and finally stones. Thus, Anaximenes had modified Thales’ idea that water was the original substance and contradicted Anaximander’s thesis of unchanging infinity while still staying within the Milesian monist tradition.

Having determined the nature of air and its properties, Anaximenes apparently developed other ideas by extension. Topics he addressed include the nature of hot and cold as expressions of rarefaction and condensation, the divine nature of air, the motion of air, cosmogony, and cosmological problems. Under the latter heading he seems to have commented on the nature of Earth, which he saw as flat and riding on a cushion of air, and the nature of heavenly bodies. In his consideration of meteorological phenomena, Anaximenes seems to have followed Anaximander rather closely. Anaximenes’ description of air also resembles Hesiod’s description of Chaos. Both Chaos and air surround Earth, persist within the developed world, and can be characterized by darkness, internal motion, divinity, immense size, and probable homogeneity.

Anaximenes, like his two predecessors, challenged the mythological world of Homer and Hesiod by introducing free and rational speculation. Anaximenes also presented a challenge by writing in prose. Prior to this, poetry had been the preferred form for serious expression—not only in literature but also in politics. By writing in prose, the early philosophers moved, in part, from the world of the aristocrat to that of the new man of Greece: the hoplite, the merchant, the small, free farmer. While this new method of thought was not accepted by the average Greek (nor even, one suspects, the average Milesian), it did gain respect and placed philosophical speculation on an elevated footing.

For Anaximenes, unlike his predecessors, however, the differences that could be observed in matter were not qualitative but quantitative. Thus it is that he was the first to suggest a consistent picture of the world as a mechanism.

Significance

Any account of Anaximenes’ life and ideas must by virtue of scant evidence be unsatisfactory. In spite of a lack of information about him and his ideas, his place in and contribution to intellectual development are clear. Anaximenes’ methods were far more influential than his specific theories on matter. Together with Thales and Anaximander, he was the first to free speculative thought from mythology and mythological terms. The methods of these three thinkers are the foundation for all modern scientific and philosophical thought. They began with intellectual curiosity about the nature of matter and combined this curiosity with keen observation of the world around them—with little regard to prior religious explanations.

At first glance, Anaximenes’ ideas about air seem regressive. When, however, the idea is seen as a more general concept—as the first theory to explain a single substance capable of changing its form—its sophistication can be appreciated. Most ancient thinkers agreed that Anaximenes provided a better explanation of natural phenomena.

It is a small step from Anaximenes’ ideas of rarefaction and condensation to Empedocles’ definition of matter and the atomic theories of Heraclitus of Ephesus and Democritus. Clearly, no one in the modern world would take these ideas at face value, but with a small shift in the translation of Anaximeneian terms, one approaches the modern concepts of states of matter and the relationship between energy and matter. Thus, Anaximenes is an important figure in the development of Western philosophical and scientific thought.

Bibliography

Barnes, Jonathan. The Presocratic Philosophers. New York: Routledge, 1996. Contains a section on Anaximenes as well as scattered comments on his ideas. Barnes is most at home with philosophical discourse and relates ancient philosophical concepts to more modern thinkers. With bibliography and concordances of ancient sources.

Burnet, John. Early Greek Philosophy. 4th ed. New York: World, 1961. The major ancient texts are translated and the ideas of Anaximenes discussed in this excellent work.

Guthrie, W. K. C. The Earlier Presocratics and the Pythagoreans. Vol. 1 in A History of Greek Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978-1990. Contains an extended section on Anaximenes that is judicial and well balanced. Guthrie’s account is used as the standard by historians. With good bibliographies and concordances of ancient sources.

Hurwit, Jeffrey M. The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100-480 B.C. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985. An exciting analysis of Greek life that integrates studies of literature, philosophy, and art.

Kirk, G. S., and J. E. Raven. The Presocratic Philosophers. 2d ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. The most extensive attempt to reconstruct Anaximenes by examining all the relevant ancient references with detailed discussions of each text. The relevant Greek and Latin texts are given, with translations provided in the notes. Includes interpretation based on the texts but little or no reference to other modern scholarly ideas. Contains concordances of ancient texts.

Stokes, M. C. The One and Many in Presocratic Philosophy. Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies with Harvard University Press, 1972. While this book is not about Anaximenes, he looms large in the investigation, and Stokes’s ideas about him are important. Stokes investigates the relationship between Anaximander’s and Anaximenes’ ideas, as well as the relationship of Anaximenes to ancient Near Eastern thought and Hesiod.

Sweeney, Leo. Infinity in the Presocratics: A Bibliographical and Philosophical Study. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1972. Each of the pre-Socratics is discussed in terms of his contribution to this specific topic. Important discussions on the usability of each ancient source for Anaximenes are included.