Milesian Thinkers and Key Ideas
The city of Miletus was located on the western coast of Asia minor Anatolia (modern day Turkey). Miletus was a port city within the Ionian region which comprised of Greek colonies. The city of Miletus was a thriving city port with trade and travellers making up a huge chunk of the cities activity. However, it isn’t the trade nor travellers that I am concerned with here, no. I am more interested in the three philosophers that emerged from here. The Milesian philosophers are of great interest to me, mainly because of the concept of Arche or first principle. With this in mind, I will endeavour to explain their metaphysical views concerning the nature of reality and its origins.
Thales of Miletus (620 BC- 546 BC)
Thales was born in the ancient Greek city of Miletus, located on the western coast of southern Anatolia, in modern-day Turkey. This city was colonised by early Greek settlers and became a bustling hub known for trade and travel. At all hours of the day, Miletus was a vibrant and active place. Among its inhabitants was Thales, renowned for many achievements, including being one of the seven sages of Greece. He was also celebrated as a navigator, mathematician, astronomer, philosopher, and more. However, my focus here is on his philosophical contributions, particularly his metaphysics.
The Milesians, who were scientifically oriented, sought to discover what they termed the Arche, or first principle. This first principle is considered the origin and source of all that exists, a concept that originates from the Milesians.
Miletus is notable not only for its intellectual contributions but also for the influence of Greek myths on Thales’ notion of Arche. For Thales, the first principle was water, which he believed to be the primary source of existence. Growing up in the port city of Miletus, he would have closely observed the sea. Aristotle noted that Thales recognised the essential role of water, as all living things require it for sustenance. Thales observed water's transformative properties scientifically; it exists in various states, such as moisture, mist, ice, steam, and liquid water. Given its versatility and crucial role, Thales regarded water as vital for life. Coupled with his hometown's proximity to the Aegean Sea, it is no surprise that he postulated water as the source of existence. He imagined the world floating on water, akin to a ship, which was a logical conclusion from his perspective.
The association of water as the Arche is also reflected in many ancient myths, including Greek mythology, where primordial water is regarded as the source of all existence, giving rise to the gods and the universe from its limitless depths. These primordial waters were juxtaposed with chaos to create balance, order, and sustenance for all living beings. It is heavily implied that Thales may have believed in these myths, which, combined with his upbringing in a port city, likely influenced his identification of water as the Arche.
According to Aristotle, Thales asserted that “all things are full of gods.” This implies that he believed all entities possess a soul, which serves as the animating and moving principle of all existence. As little is known about Thales, his views on the soul and its characteristics remain unclear. Consequently, we cannot definitively ascertain his precise meaning. One interpretation could suggest that he believed all things possess a divine essence originating from god. Alternatively, it may be inferred that he saw gods and divine beings as not entirely separate from the physical world, indicating that both the divine and the soul are simultaneously eternal and inherent in nature.
Regarding the Arche being water, Thales found this notion logical and reasonable, as water plays a crucial role in sustaining life. To some extent, Thales is correct in this regard. However, if we take his assertions literally, they are flawed; the Earth does not float on water, and existence does not derive from water. Furthermore, as Anaximander noted, water cannot generate fire, which is its opposite. Thus, the existence of fire contradicts the notion that water is the source of all things.
If we interpret Thales’ concept of water esoterically, we might understand water as a representation of undifferentiated matter. In this state, everything exists merely as potential rather than actuality. Through the will or mind of God, this potential is actualised. A comparison may be drawn between a seed and its growth: the seed represents the mind of God, water serves as the bridge between potentiality and actuality, and the fully grown plant represents actuality. The idea of the world being upheld and floating like water could symbolise existence sustained by a divine presence. Whether this aligns with Thales’ original intent remains uncertain; we cannot say for certain. In my view, his concept was meant to be interpreted both literally, with water as essential for life, and esoterically, as the source of all.
The validity of Thales’ arguments depends on one's interpretation. However, it is clear that Thales was the first to approach the origin of existence through the lens of an Arche. He utilised water as either a literal or symbolic representation to convey his philosophy. In either case, he pioneered the use of a physical element as a reference point for all that exists. By blending a scientific approach with a potentially esoteric view, Thales emerges as a compelling thinker. His use of water as the Arche allowed him to convey his metaphysical ideas without relying on religious or mystical language, making his concept more accessible and comprehensible.
Anaximander (610 BC – 546 BC)
Anaximander was also from Miletus, and it is said that he studied under Thales. Like Thales, he had a notion of the Arche, but his conception of the Arche differed significantly. Anaximander’s Arche was Apeiron, meaning "the boundless," from which all things originate. Whereas Thales utilised an element to describe the Arche, Anaximander rejected the notion of an element in favour of his concept of the Arche.
From the boundless infinite, all things originate and subsequently dissolve, resulting in a continuous cycle of emergence and dissolution within the Apeiron. All things that are created emerge from the Apeiron, have their physical existence sustained, and, when faced with inevitable destruction, return to the Apeiron, only to re-emerge once again. This steady flow of generation and destruction represents a cosmic order and balance. Generation is as vital as destruction; without either, the cosmic order is disrupted. This cosmic order and the constant flux of generation and destruction are governed by Necessity. For all things that exist, they must be generated by Necessity, and if they are generated, they must also be destroyed. All of this is attributed to the divine Necessity.
Anaximander rejected the elements and compound as the Arche because they are subject to change and can transform into one another. Anything subject to change is susceptible to generation and destruction. However, if the Arche is to be considered eternal, then elements cannot fulfil this role. Thus, Anaximander reasoned that the Apeiron, which is boundless, formless, infinite, and eternal, serves as the Arche. From a conceptual and metaphysical perspective, this reasoning holds significant merit. Being boundless, the Apeiron is not confined to any physical space and is therefore not limited. It is the container or progenitor of space, matter, and boundaries. It is formless; if it were to possess form, it would occupy matter and space. However, as mentioned, anything subject to matter and space is liable to generation and destruction. This cannot be the case, as the Arche is formless. Instead, it generates form from its eternal formless state. Since it is infinite, finite entities are generated from the infinite; again, the Apeiron cannot be finite. This is because anything finite has a duration in time and space, subject to generation, destruction, and change. As established, the Arche is not subject to any of these. Finally, it is eternal and the source of all that is finite. What is eternal cannot be affected by phenomena that pertain to the mortal realm, such as destruction or generation. Within the eternal, it encompasses the finite.
For Anaximander, the constant generation and destruction of things that originate from the Apeiron represent a cosmic balance, guided by the hands and will of Necessity. Beyond what has already been stated regarding the characteristics of the Apeiron, intellect or will has not been mentioned. Due to the preservation of only a few fragments and second-hand accounts, we cannot ascertain whether Anaximander explicitly stated this. Based on the surviving writings, they do not suggest that the Apeiron possesses intellect. Aristotle offered a minor critique of Anaximander, specifically regarding the process through which things are created from the Apeiron, which Anaximander, as far as surviving texts indicate, did not elucidate. I believe that intellect and Will could provide an explanation for this. The Apeiron could be regarded as a state of limitless potential, containing undifferentiated matter. Through sheer will and intellect, this potential is realised as actuality. This transformation is not possible without intellect and will. Humans possess the potential to create or accomplish certain actions, but this potential is not equivalent to absolute nothingness; it does not constitute actual existence. However, we can actualise what we are potentially capable of doing. While Anaximander does not articulate this, it serves as a plausible explanation for the lack of clarity regarding how things are created from the Apeiron.
As a student of Thales, Anaximander took a significant step forward in understanding the infinite and eternal. His reasoning is sound in terms of rejecting the elements as the source, positing instead that there must be something beyond these elements that is responsible for their existence and is not subject to change. This line of thinking has influenced many subsequent philosophers.
Anaximenes (586 BC – 525 BC)
Anaximenes was the third philosopher to emerge from the port city of Miletus. It is reported by Theophrastus that he was a student of Anaximander. Like his predecessors, he contemplated the notion of the Arche, influenced by Anaximander and possibly Thales, which comes as no surprise. As we have seen, Thales identified the Arche as water, while Anaximander posited it as Apeiron, or the boundless. Anaximenes disagreed with both and suggested that the Arche is Air.
For Anaximenes, similar to his predecessors, the underlying nature of all that exists is singular and infinite, which he identifies as Air being the first principle. Like Anaximander, Anaximenes asserts that everything is generated from Air, into which everything also resolves back. Motion is eternal, stemming from Air. Cicero, in his work On the Nature of Gods, notes that Anaximenes claimed Air was a god. Additionally, Saint Augustine, in The City of God, records that Anaximenes believed in the existence of the gods, presumably arising from Air.
The process by which existent things, such as matter, are generated by the Arche (Air) is explained as follows. Essentially, Air, depending on its motion and condition, can generate different entities. Anaximenes suggests that Air undergoes two states, which produce different outcomes according to its condition. For example, when Air experiences rarefaction and condensation, it manifests in varied forms. According to Theophrastus, Anaximenes believed that when Air is dilated, it becomes fire and heat. Conversely, when it is condensed, or becomes denser, it first generates wind, then cloud, water, earth, and subsequently stone.
Concerning his Arche being Air, Anaximenes' theory regarding change, such as rarefaction and condensation and the states they induce, is intriguing and, in some respects, holds truth. However, demonstrable experiments indicate that high density does not necessarily equate to extreme cold or result in stone. Likewise, low density does not invariably lead to heat. In this regard, it contradicts his own reasoning. Furthermore, Anaximenes' concept of Air lacks a thorough explanation of motion in its original form. Critics of his Arche, including later thinkers such as Aristotle and Plato, have raised these concerns. Aristotle somewhat concurred that Air was the life force or soul of the world, which is accurate; without Air, living beings cannot exist. However, the notion of the soul being linked to a material cause is not something Plato agreed with. The soul, in our common understanding, cannot be attributed to a material cause. This is because what is material is subject to birth, change, and decay, whereas the soul, for many, including Plato, is eternal and unchanging, and thus cannot be equated with Air. In this sense, I align with Plato, while also agreeing with Aristotle and Anaximenes that Air is responsible for sustaining life.
The Arche being Air appears to me to be a somewhat radical departure from Anaximander's perspective. I contend that Anaximander's Arche holds more significance than Anaximenes’ Arche. The rationale behind this suggestion is that Anaximander's Apeiron possesses many characteristics that we would naturally ascribe to God or the first cause. The proposition of Air being the first principle is susceptible to contradiction, which the Apeiron does not face. Anaximander’s Apeiron, although lacking a distinctive quality such as Air or water, does not suffer from generation, decay, or change. In this respect, Anaximander’s Arche does not fall under contradiction, whereas Thales' and Anaximenes' water and air, respectively, do. How can water and Air, being subject to change, reside in that which is eternal and unchanging?
In conclusion
The Milesian philosophers — Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes — converge on a pragmatic conclusion: that the diversity of the sensible world arises from transformation of a single underlying principle, an archê, which can be investigated rationally rather than explained solely by myth. Though they disagree on whether that principle is water, the apeiron (the indefinite), or air, their shared methodological shift — favouring careful observation, causal unity and speculative abstraction — establishes the first sustained and systematic attempt to render nature intelligible through natural principles. This legacy is less the specific material each proposes than the broader conceptual move to seek continuity, underlying processes of change, and rational explanation; it supplies a durable foundation that propels later Greek philosophy and ultimately helps inaugurate the longer intellectual project we now call science.
