Anaximander's beliefs deeply oppose those of his predecessor, Thales. Anaximander main opposition is towards Thales' belief that water is the archē, the origin or source, of all things. Instead, Anaximander believes the archē is the apeiron. Anaximander believes the apeiron, unlike water, is a neutral substance. Water is not a neutral substance because it has the characteristics of "cold" and "wet," and therefore it has an opposite. As discussed in class, Anaximander also believes that everything must be neutral in order for the apeiron to exist. For Anaximander, the apeiron is where other elements and opposites arise.
Anaximander also believes that the apeiron "is eternal, ageless, and in motion, and that a plurality of heavens and worlds
…show more content…
Air changing its properties follows Anaximander's belief that the apeiron is neutral and makes opposites. In this case, air can make fire and water, it just depends on whether the air is rarefying (to make fire) or condensing (to make air). McKirahan explains that "Anaximander accounted for opposites by positing a neutral principle with no definite properties of its own" (McKirahan 49). Meaning that air is a fairly neutral object because unlike water it does not have as defined properties, at times it can be cold and wet or hot and dry. McKirahan also explains that if Anaximenes was to get similar feedback as Thales, asking why everything does not have the same properties as air, Anaximenes can respond saying in certain conditions everything does have the same properties as air. He explains that air can have different properties: the contracted state of matter and the condensed state is cold, whereas what is fine and "loose" (calling it this way with this very word) is hot. As a result, he claimed that it is not said unreasonably that a person releases both hot and cold from his mouth. For the breath becomes cold when compressed and condensed by the lips, and when the mouth is relaxed, the escaping breath becomes warm because of rareness (McKirahan