(8) Blogging Through Prof Martin Heidegger’s Interpretations of Greek Philosophy (Transition from Anaximander to Parmenides Part 1)

Anaximander gave us a word about beings as beings (entities, things that are in some way instead of being nothing) not just about beings of a specific domain like physical beings or anthropological entities, beings in their Being, and one of the elements was transition like day to night.  In the political dimension, this made sense because Anaximander’s Greece was in a transition period where there were embryos hinting at transition away from the rule of tyrants and toward the voice of the people.  This would have been conspicuous at the time in the contrast between some cities and the reforms happening in Athens.  The transition brings the two opposites into outline or conspicuousness – a limit or peras.  In Greek transition has to do with methistanai, which includes such things as:  To move or transfer from one place to another; To remove, displace, or change the position of something or someone; To change or alter, especially in the context of changing one’s mind or allegiance.  For example, in philosophical texts, “μεθιστάναι” might be used to discuss changes in philosophical thought or the transition from one state to another. In historical or political writings, it could refer to the act of overthrowing a ruler or shifting political support.  Methistanai thus does not refer to a particular domain of beings (physical, historical, etc.) but rather beings “as” beings.   We really see what capitalism is if we contrast it with coming from a socialist government, for instance.  The transition taken in isolation from the beings transitioning thus is not put into outline/limit but is that which is without limit (Anaximander’s key term apeiron/unlimited) that brings forth (phusis) the opposing parties into limit/outline/conspicuousness.

“μεθιστάναι” (methistanai) can indeed be used figuratively. Here are some ways in which it might be applied in a non-literal sense: It can refer to someone changing their mind or shifting their beliefs, ideologies, or allegiances. For example, in a philosophical or theological context, one might talk about “μεθιστάναι” from one philosophical school to another, indicating a shift in thought or doctrine.  Figuratively, it could describe someone moving from one political party to another or changing their support within a social or political context. This could be seen in phrases discussing shifts in loyalty or political power.  The verb could be used to describe a transformation in one’s moral or ethical stance, where someone “moves” from one moral framework to another.  In literature, it might be employed to describe a character’s transformation or a shift in narrative focus, where the “movement” is not physical but conceptual or thematic.  For instance, in ancient texts, you might find “μεθιστάναι” used in a context like:

“He moved away from the teachings of his youth” (indicating a shift in philosophical or religious belief).

“The city moved from under the rule of one tyrant to the governance of the people” (suggesting a political change).

In these cases, while there’s no physical displacement, there’s a clear figurative sense of moving from one state, condition, or belief to another. This reflects the versatility of ancient Greek in capturing nuanced changes in human experience, thought, and society. A prime example of this for the Greeks was the transition from the fire and absorption in youth to the listless tedium of old age, and so they imagined their gods eating ambrosia that restored youth. Aristotle said only a god or philosopher or animal delighted in solitude.

Indeed, there can be an interesting conceptual connection between “μεθιστάναι” (methistanai) and Anaximander’s “ἄπειρον” (apeiron) in the context of ancient Greek philosophy, particularly in the thought of Anaximander, who is credited with introducing the concept of “apeiron.”  “Απειρον” (Apeiron): This term, used by Anaximander, means “the unlimited,” “the infinite,” or “the boundless.” It refers to the origin of all beings (something that “is” in some way or other – a physical entity, psychological entity, mathematical entity, anthropological entity, literary entity, etc), an indeterminate and boundless source from which everything comes into being and into which everything returns. It’s a principle that is without limits.  “Μεθιστάναι” (Methistanai): As discussed, this verb implies movement, change, or displacement, whether literal or figurative.  Anaximander’s “apeiron” is dynamic, not static. Entities come from it and return to it through processes of change. “Methistanai” could then be seen as describing processes or movements within or from the “apeiron” — the coming into being and passing away of beings/entities, the transformation of entities from one state to another within the boundless.

If one extends the concept metaphorically, “methistanai” might also represent the human condition or ethical journey from one state of being or understanding to another, within the context of the infinite possibilities or the boundless nature of existence as symbolized by “apeiron.” Anaximander’s use of “apeiron” suggests a system of beings/entities in flux, where elements are in constant movement or transformation. “Methistanai” could be invoked to describe this cosmological process of change, emphasizing the dynamic aspect of the universe.  This connection would highlight the interplay between the concepts of infinity, change, and transformation in early Greek philosophy.  And this is important to think about today.  For example, it is on the Greek understanding of time/transition noted in previous posts that we normally assume “the old is the antiquated, and what is easier to cast off than the antiquated, since indeed, as past, it passes away of itself (Heidegger 29).”  This relates to Pheme as the goddess of what is new and current, that which steps forth for a time and recedes into the background: Pheme, as the goddess of fame, rumor, and gossip.  Holderlin said “For present things are dear to humans” (Holderlin, The Peregrination).

Anaximander was a pre-Socratic philosopher and lived in Miletus, an ancient Greek city, around the 6th century BCE.  In the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, many Greek city-states (poleis) experienced periods of tyranny. Tyrants were individuals who seized power, often with the support of the populace or military, to end the rule of aristocrats. They might have been seen as liberators initially but often became autocrats. The period around Anaximander’s lifetime was indeed one where some poleis began transitioning from these autocratic regimes to more democratic forms of governance. This was not uniform across all Greek states, but cities like Athens were moving towards systems where the populace (specifically, free adult males) had more say in governance through assemblies and councils.  Miletus, where Anaximander lived, had its own trajectory. It experienced tyranny under leaders like Thrasybulus, who was a contemporary of Periander of Corinth, both known from the accounts of tyrants by ancient historians like Herodotus. However, the transition in Miletus towards democracy or oligarchy (rule by a few) wasn’t as clear or as well-documented as in Athens. After tyranny, Miletus seems to have oscillated between various forms of government, including oligarchy.  In a broad sense, the time of Anaximander can be seen as a transition period in Greek political history. The concept of tyranny was waning in some places, giving way to experiments in governance that included more citizen participation, although this was far from uniform across all Greek states.

Specifically for Miletus, it’s harder to pinpoint a clear transition from tyranny to democracy during Anaximander’s life; instead, there was likely a mix of governance styles, with shifts towards oligarchy or democracy occurring later or in different forms.  Therefore, while there was indeed a broader movement towards more democratic or at least non-tyrannical governance in Greek poleis around this time, in Anaximander’s Miletus, this transition was part of a more complex and less clear evolution of political systems.  In any case, it makes sense Anaximander’s saying also seems to voice the contrast between the authoritarian establishment and the city state reflecting the society willed by the people. In Anaximander’s language of justice (dike) and injustice (adikia), which point more generally to order/harmony and disorder, we can see in Anaximander the idea of an opposition between the authoritarian tyrant’s laws and laws that the people would have enacted for themselves, and so the old political model, while in place, was in the embryo stage of becoming undone like pulling a thread on a sweater.