This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Philosophy: Philosophers / Metaphysics / Ancient Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Metaphysics Ancient philosophy Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Voorts, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 9 July 2023.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ABoogieWitDaHoodie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article talks for a couple of paragraphs about "air", and then says, "it was actually 'aer'..." Which one is the proper word? Please replace all occurrences in the article with the proper term, and/or remove that paragraph. --bdesham ★ 01:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aer was the Greek form of the word, air the English transliteration that was absorbed into it. 18:25, 17 September 2007 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.4.46.246 (talk)

Anaximenes believed the Earth was flat like a disc and rode on air like a frisbee. This statement has no reference, and the article itself mentions only [1] and I can't find a reference to the flat earth there either. On the other hand, [2] doubts that Anaximenes believed in a flat earth: Anaximenes, Anaxagoras and Democritus thought that the earth settles like a lid on the air under it, but their argument is about the size of the earth rather than its flatness. The source for this is Aristotle, de caelo 294b (Ἀναξιμένης δὲ καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος τὸ πλάτος αἴτιον εἶναί φασι τοῦ μένειν αὐτήν usw.) This simply means that the surface of the earth keeps it afloat in the universe. The Milesian natural philosophers, like Anaximander, generally thought that the earth was spherical, as the least biased source says, e.g. [3] And these are not Anaximenes' own words, but only a short summary by Aristotle, who may have simplified these views. I am therefore inclined to edit this article, but would first like to post my intention here, in case not everyone is on the same page. Rominator (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was added on 29 December 2020 by MisterCake. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I left a message on his talk page. I'm not saying that there is no literature at all asserting that Anaximenes believed the earth was flat, just that most scholars do not support this claim as there is no source evidence. Yesterday, I have looked through Diels-Kranz #13, and the above statement seems to be the only one with regard to the shape of the earth. (DK13A7.6 clearly implies a certain roundness of the earth's surface) The interpretation that the earth was flat seems to derive from a misinterpretation of "to platos", which simply means surface (not everyone who speaks of the surface of the earth thinks this is flat). Rominator (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's so commonly said of him I guess a source slipped my mind. WKC Guthrie "Anaximenes, we are told, said that the sun is flat like a leaf, and that it and the other heavenly bodies 'ride upon' the air owing to their flat shape." Ernest Bedford Bax "As Thales had conceived the earth to be a flat disc, floating upon water, so Anaximenes described it as a flat disc, floating upon air." Renato Dicati "In the cosmos of Anaximenes, the Earth is a flat disc resting on the air ". Peter Adamson "He (Anaximenes) said that the earth we live on is shaped not like a drum (as Anaximander), but like a disc." David Furley "Thales claimed it floats on water; Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Democritus spoke of its flatness, which allowed it to float on air like a frisbee." And so on. The traditional view is Thales thought of flat earth floating on water, Anaximander thought of a drum or can floating in empty space, and Anaximenes thought of a flat earth floating on air. Aristotle's comment that "Anaximenes and Anaxagoras and Democritus say that its breadth is the cause of its stability: for it does not cut through the air beneath but covers it over like a lid, as broad bodies evidently do, for against the wind these are difficult to move because of their resistance." is taken to mean like a frisbee. EDIT I also have a 1961 Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Anaximenes entry, written by Peter Diamandopoulos, "From the genesis of the universe at large, Anaximenes moves to the description of the shape of the Earth...The Earth, according to him, is broad, flat, and shallow – tablelike." Presumably he means a table-top. Also A. C. Grayling's History of Philosophy. "Anaximenes held that that the earth is flat and sits on the air like a lid (thus did Aristotle describe hie view)." And Bertrand Russell, "The Pythagoreans discovered that the Earth is spherical, but the atomists adhered to the view of Anaximenes, that it is shaped like a disc." Cake (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As expected, these are just general handbooks, as far as I see not texts by specialists of the archaic or classical Greek period. None of them provides, or presumably has checked, his sources, but they all seem to rely on the single fragment in Aristotle's de caelo above and are just copying one another. These overviews are also outdated (there was once a tendency to engage uncritically with the polemicists against the pre-Socratics) and do not reflect the current state of research. Modern research is far more critical on some of these suppositions, e.g.: Modern commentators assume that Thales regarded the earth as flat, thin, and circular, but there is no ancient testimony to support that opinion ... There are several good reasons to accept that Thales envisaged the earth as spherical. [4]. As heirs to Mesopotamian and Egyptian astronomy, from the sixth century B.C.E. onwards, scholars and philosophers from Greek cities (Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) theorized a spherical Earth in the center of a cosmos that was spherical too. [5]. Aristotle was probably not right and misrepresented views: The concavity of Democritus’ earth does not prevent Aristotle from calling it flat (πλατεῖα) (On the Heavens 294b15 = DK 59A88). Elsewhere, however, Democritus’ earth is said to be oblong (ἡμιόλος) (DK 68B15).. The case of Anaximenes is even more difficult as all accounts rely on the one fragment by Aristotle, and the fragment quoted by Hippolytus, though not necessarily implying a spherical earth, says that the earth was not flat, but to some extent rounded. There is also just one scholarly opinion of the "frisbee theory" (Furley) and he is apparently innacurate with the views of the other philosophers he mentions. Nevertheless, this idea comes up in the introduction to the article, and is completely unsourced (though debated). Rominator (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are genuine philosophers, not randos on wikipedia, and the Cambridge Encyclopedia is entirely by specialists. Guthrie was also very obviously an ancient philosophy specialist, so it seems like you didn't even read it, for he is far far superior to some general "history of science" link and internet encyclopedia, far closer to a "general handbook" than anything I posted. They all provide the source as the same quote from Aristotle. AC Grayling's book came out 4 years ago. It's not outdated. Always with Aristotle, there are several interpretations, and he's considered uncharitable. I know. But the standard interpretation is what I said, and I literally can't find a single source disagreeing. I have Cushman and Kaufmann and Turner and Zeller's Histories too. Do you wanna bet what it says about Anaximenes? I do. Does the ability to predict what they're gonna say not show something? It makes perfect sense to say Anaximenes thought of the Earth as a frisbee, and have a footnote that some people interpret Aristotle differently. Pretending otherwise is the epitome of "original research". Anaximander's alleged map isn't for a globe, either. Again, in every history, without fail, Thales is flat on the water, Anaximander is the flat top of a drum suspended in the void, and Anaximenes is flat on the air. While Pythagoras argued the Earth is perfect and perfect things are round. Find a History of Philosophy that says differently, and if you do it will be after 100 that says the same. Cake (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we have exactly one source indicating (perhaps) a flat earth (plateia does not necessarily imply that). We then have another source saying that the earth according to Anaximenes was somewhat rounded, perhaps concave, but not like a frisbee. This is not about me, only the scholarship that you and I quote. Guthrie, whom you identify as the only specialist on Greek texts, does not say that Anaximenes thought the earth was flat, the quotation you provide is just about the sun, stars and planets, but not the earth. He also makes clear that we have no direct knowledge. We have one scholarly opinion (not a specialist) who probably compares Aristotle's summary with a frisbee because of the abilility to float on the air, but not because of the shape. To leave the "frisbee" unsourced in the introduction is completely misleading as the association of the reader would be with the shape, not floatability. I agree that it make sense to address the problem of the shape of the earth and where the idea of "flatness" comes from in the main text and in context of the wider theory. But we have also seen that current scholarship is slightly more critical. For example, Dirk Couprie (quoted above) who has authored several books and articles specifically on Presocratic philosophers. At the moment, the article reflects none of this. Rominator (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fear it is about you. That's your interpretation, that's not the sources interpretation. That's original research, it seems to me. I can show you several secondary sources, using Guthrie as source, for both that Anaximander says it's a drum and that very quote about the leaf implies the Earth as well. The frisbee was because it refers to both shape and float-ability. I literally have a list of philosophers who says it's flat like a disc (frisbee) or round table top. I don't doubt that when one gets into the weeds, there are several interpretations. I don't speak Greek, and we are millenia removed from any chance of reliable sources. I fully expect there to be scholarship giving as many interpretations for the Milesians as for Heraclitus or Parmenides. But one is simply lying if they deny this: The standard account is Thales says flat world on water, Anaximander says world is a drum which we walk across the flat top of, and which is suspended by nothing, and Anaximenes says flat world on air. It seems to me any dissenting scholars should be a footnote (figuratively or literally) to that. I'll take the extra effort to look at even more sources but fully expect "Disc" to be there. I'm not trying to debate what he really thought; I'm trying to debate what the usual story is. Cake (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenes Laertius writes Anaximenes thought "the stars moved not under the Earth, but around the Earth". Arguably, that means a flat Earth. The next ones come from Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy by S. Marc Cohen, which they made me use as the textbook when I took Ancient Greek philosophy at university. The source seems to be from Pseudo-Plutarch, Miscellanies 3 "When the air was being felted the earth was the first thing to come into being, and it is very flat. This is why it rides upon the air, as is reasonable." The book is arranged by theme, and the very next one for Anaximenes is Aristotle in On the Heavens, "Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Democritus says that its flatness is the cause of its staying at rest. For it does not cut the air below but cover it like a lid..." Then Hippolytus in Refutation of All Heresies, "Likewise the Sun and moon and all the other heavenly bodies, which are fiery, ride upon the air on account of their flatness." The implication is pretty thick. Further, Guthrie states "What did the earth rest on? If on water, as Thales had said, then what did the water rest on, and so forth? It rests on nothing, said Anaximander, and the reason it does not fall is simply that being at the centre of a spherical universe, and hence equidistant from all its points, it could have no reason for falling in one direction rather than in another." And Zeller writes: "In the creation of the universe, the earth was first formed; according to Anaximenes, it is flat like a plate, and therefore borne upon the air..." (it then talks about stars formed from the vapor and he notes presumably also riding on air). PJ Bicknell writes "Kirk and Raven (in The PreSocratic Philosophers), believing that the surrounding air was unbounded in any way suppose that the earth is supported by aer's infinite depth. Aristotle de Caelo 294 b 18-21 says, however, that Anaximenes believed that the flat earth was supported by (greek to me)...so the implications is that the...universe were enclosed like the air and water in a clepsydra." Cake (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bicknell and Zeller rely on Aristotle, de caelo 294b, the passage you also quote above (flatness = to platos can also mean surface [6], and this is the interpretation of Couprie). I am aware of Diogenes Laertius, but can't see how this implies a flat earth. The stars may as well move underneath a flat earth, this seems the concept he is addressing here. I can not find Pseudo-Plutarch, Miscellanies 3 the way you quote it. Do you have a clearer reference? You can find a translation here: [7]. In 1.3 you can read: Anaximenes his fellow-citizen pronounceth, that air is the principle of all beings; from it all receive their original, and into it all return. He affirms that our soul is nothing but air; it is that which constitutes and preserves; the whole world is invested with spirit and air. For spirit and air are synonymous etc. Nothing about the shape of the earth. This could be a misattribution to some other philosopher. (I have also searched for "flat" and "Anaximenes" with no result). At any rate, your quotation is just from the moment when earth was first formed, not its current state. If I remember correctly, Anaximander also thought that in the beginning the earth was floating on water (like in Genesis) You can find Hippolytus, refutation of all heresies here: [8], the text goes on: and that the sun is hid, not by being under the earth, but because covered by the higher portions of the earth, and on account of the greater distance that he is from us. (1.6). If the earth has higher portions, and the sun can move further away, then the earth can not be flat, but is to a certain extent rounded (not necessarily spherical). No ancient authority mentions the disc, at least not after the world first came into existence, and Hippolytus implies that Anaximenes' earth was neither a disc or frisbee. Rominator (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never argued they weren't using Aristotle. Bicknell offers his interpretation of Aristotle contra Kirk's and Raven's, and all three of them bloody agree it's a flat earth. As do Hippolytus and pseudo-Plutarch. I quoted them. And everybody else. I think it's talking about Book 3, not Book 1 chapter 3, perhaps the bit on earthquakes. Your own Pseudo-Plutarch link states the Sun resembles a leaf, and "Thales, the Stoics, and their followers say that the earth is globular. Anaximander, that it resembles a smooth stony pillar. Anaximenes, that it hath the shape of a table." As for stars not going underneath a flat earth - yes, I agree, stars could go underneath a flat earth, but if they don't ever go underneath, or over the horizon, that would have to be a flat earth. Just look up flat-earthers, they think the stars don't go under the Earth, like we do. They think exactly what Laertius said. "If the earth has higher portions, and the sun can move further away, then the earth can not be flat." No, that doesn't follow. Having mountains does not mean the Earth is round. Flat in the horizontal does not mean flat in the vertical. The sun moving also says nothing about the shape of the Earth. Cake (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "flat" earth is not so much the problem here, but flat earth (in this sense of the Presocratics) can mean anything from concave to rounded to disc-flat. The word used "platos" or "plateia" can also just mean "extended" and Pseudo-Plutarch is just about the beginning of the world. We can exclude that "higher portions" means mountains because he lived at the sea. The problem certainly is, for example, with the "frisbee" or "disc" shape. There is no evidence for this, but Hippolytus seems to imply that the earth is somewhat rounded. At the very best, this is an interpretation and modern research is much more critical than the article implies. Do you have a reference or link for ancient "flat-earthers" and the question of how the stars move? As far as the translation from Hippolytus goes, Anaximenes, that it hath the shape of a table, the orginal is Ἀναξιμένης τραπεζοειδῆ. You can look that up here: [9] "trapezium-shaped". Does a trapezium look like a disc or a frisbee? Rominator (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no specialist and just a guy with a bachelor's in philosophy, so I think I've said about all I can on this subject. There's no dispute that the oldest source on Anaximenes seems to be Aristotle's On the Heavens, and that there's several problems with that: the issue of translation, that Aristotle was hundreds of years removed from Anaximenes, that we're thousands removed from him, that Aristotle was an uncharitable polemicist against prior views, that we only have Aristotle's students lecture notes, and so on. For just about any piece of Aristotle, there are several interpretations debated in the literature. But wikipedia especially, and anything else in my opinion, should predominantly care about what is the standard view. I think I've easily shown the standard view is Anaximenes thought of the earth as a flat-disc floating on air. For example, the bit from Bicknell takes it for granted, and instead has Kirk and Raven say the air under the disc is infinite, while Bicknell is arguing it is finite. Whether one can dispute this standard disc view is of independent interest to me, but I am not sure whether wikipedia cares or not. I agree it should, but there are rules against "original research" and the like. Which of course is frustrating if you doubt the usual story. Say with crimes for example. If you have a perpetrator or an MO in mind other than the usual tabloid story, the wikipedia entry on the subject will be very frustrating, but it will be what they want rather than what you or I want. One almost has to write a journal article themselves and then get it cited in the article. Maybe it's not like that, and maybe it's just "these days, scholars say otherwise." What comes to mind is G. E. L. Owen's Eleatic Questions doubts a few standard interpretations of Parmenides, like that he was a dissenting Pythagorean. Any Parmenides article worth its salt should mention Owen, but of course after it mentions the usual story. I do know at least in the case of Plato's nickname, the meaning is disputed, though all seem to rest on 'broad, flat', as a plateau. And a flat world can have plateaus, or elevation. A flat world can be a bumpy world. That's all I mean about mountains, and all I take "higher portions" to mean. Pseudo-Plutarch is also definitely a source used for the above authors. So I would not disregard it because it's about the beginning of the world - several sources, for example Zeller, say it being flat at the beginning was the significant part for Anaximenes. He says the stars come from the vapor coming off the frisbee-world. The translation I cited for Hippolytus sure says he mentioned a flat earth, and so does Aristotle, and so does Pseudo-Plutarch. You could email Patricia Curd or one of the editors, I suppose, and measure your skill at Koine Greek. I'm certainly not the one to judge. And yes I think a table-top on air resembles a frisbee, even if trapezoid shaped, if that's all it means. Cake (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not dealing with a recent crime, just with a philosophical view of the 6th century BC. We have very recent specialist secondary literature that is correct to say that Aristotle's remark is about the surface, not the shape of the earth. The higher portions are not about mountains and so on, as you can read here: More importantly, in Presocratic cosmology the flat earth was usually thought to be somewhat concave. This idea can be traced back to Anaximander’s drum-shaped earth. Column drums used to be made slightly concave by a technique called ἀναϑύρωσις.1 According to Anaximander’s successor Anaximenes, the setting sun is hidden behind the higher parts of the earth,2 which implies that the central parts are lower. [10]. There is no evidence in ancient authorities that Anaximenes thought of the earth as a disc (round). The words used are to platos and plateia and this simply means (plane) surface. The flatness is a possible and common interpretation but there is no indication of a disc-like plane. There is evidence that Anaximenes preferred a trapezium shape of the earth. Even if you stick with the imprecise "table", then a table is almost always quadrangular, not round, today and even more so in the 6th century BC. The quotations you give in the above are almost always taken from tertiary literature. As we have seen, those with expertise in Greek texts don't claim that Anaximenes' earth was a disc or frisbee, certainly not after it first came into existence (koine Greek is biblical Greek by the way). At best, this is cherrypicked ("cakeism"), but according to WP:NOR the use of tertiary literature should be avoided (Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources). If like here there are divergent interpretations, then the article needs to take account of that, especially so since the problematic parts of tertiary literature have no support in the primary sources. Pseudo-Plutarch also says that Anaximenes affirms that the circumference of heaven makes the limit of the earth's revolution (placita philosophorum, 888b 5, translation from the above website) and Anaximenes, that they [the stars] are turned under and about the earth (889C). So the main point is he believed the earth was floating in the universe and the "lid theory" was his approach to explaining this. Rominator (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of crime is just an analogy to show that wikipedia is itself a tertiary source which gives the mainstream view. Has nothing to do with how recent it was. The secondary sources I provided are exactly what they want, and they simply disagree with you, and it's 100 to 0. And again, a flat earth can be bumpy. Stop acting otherwise. A billiard ball isn't flat but isn't bumpy, a piece of bubble wrap is flat and bumpy. "Flat earth" means in the horizontal, not in the vertical. People who think the Earth is flat don't think mountains are an illusion. It also seems very strange to object whether it's round or square, the point is it's flat and floats on air. That's just conceding the point and changing the subject. This topic title is not "sources for a circle". The main point is wikipedia doesn't care about your opinion. It cares about Russell, Guthrie, Zeller, Kirk, Raven, Cohen, and Curd's opinion. That's what they want, and what I have and you don't. I never disagreed with also addressing recent scholarship and other interpretations, if such exists. You're the one arguing for deleting. Cake (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have almost nowhere provided a reference for the quotation you gave, so I can't verify this. Nevertheless, the only scholar who speaks of a disc (or frisbee) in relation to Anaximenes' view of the earth, according to your own quotation and the names you mention above, is Russell, who, for all his academic merits, has no background in ancient Greek texts. You express your own opinion (implausible because the sun sets in the ocean, not in a mountain) about what the higher portions of the earth means to you and insist to have your opinion in the article, but you completely disregard peer-reviewed secondary literature on this. In the above you speak of "Histories of philosophies" and the quotations you give are very short, suggesting they derive from tertiary literature (not just from outdated literature). In order to check whether your quotations could pass as secondary literature, you would have to say where this is from. The article still has no source at all for the introduction where it speaks of the world as a "frisbee" and, objectively, most scholars don't follow this outlandish view. Is it still possible to come to an informal agreement among ourselves or should we go for a third opinion? Rominator (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm not in favour of deletion. Just that the article should address the points raised by scholarship (and pointed out in the above discussion). As to the introduction, my suggestion is that the entire subject is too complex to be covered in an unsourced short sentence, and the sentence currently in the introduction is misleading. Either that sentence needs to be reworded or (perhaps preferably) the issue of the shape of the earth should not be solved in the introduction, only in the main text. Rominator (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: Anaximenes (second half of the sixth century B.C.) thought the earth had the form of a trapezium - Fridtjof Nansen, In Northern Mists, transl. 2014, 11. Rominator (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided so many sources as to have gotten exhausted. The best one I can give is Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, by Cohen and Curd and Reeve, page 17. It couldn't be clearer there, and that's quite an authoritative source. It was used in my undergrad course on the subject, and it hails itself as the standard on the back cover. Being flat and riding on air is like a disc or frisbee, whether a circle, or a square, or a trapezoid. If you gave me a table top, of any shape, and told me to make it ride on air, I'd toss it like a frisbee. I've also tried to be clear that I'm all for noting whatever recent scholarships says about it, but that we have to be careful and make sure wikipedia is too, and not run afoul of original research. It seems to me flat and riding on air is the usual interpretation, and so belongs in the lede. But I agree that if there's a debate about it, that should be covered in the body. Cake (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS on Diogenes Laertius saying the stars going around but not under the Earth - while some other people seem to also say the opposite, if Laertius can be trusted, that seems to me to imply a flat Earth. Think of a tumbler glass cup, with the bottom as the earth, and the stars around the walls of the glass. Compared to a round Earth, where the stars go "under" the flat earth, or over the horizon. If it's turtles all the way down, then you can't get underneath. 03:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I take it Cohen et al. is essentially a sourcebook with translations, and we have already identified the relevant ones (Aristotle, de caelo; Pseudo-Plutarch and Hippolytus, refutatio omnium haeresium). These sources indicate that Anaximenes' earth was trapezoid-shaped (flat surfaces, some higher portions), floating in the universe, and supported by air. This is also basically the view in secondary literature, although some claim the disc-shaped earth (frisbee could perhaps be misleading if taken out of context as this refers to the ability to float on the air rather than to the shape). As to the question of the stars going round or under, I have seen a few days ago that there is another chapter: [11], covering this question at length, including a summary of theories put forward by recent scholarship. Do you have access to this? (I do). Rominator (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A very neat source. Is a trapeza trapezoid shaped? or does the etymology go the other way? Cake (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, seems to me even the drawings in the source just given have circular, flat earths (not to mention the very title is of flat earth). The tilt is an interesting bit I confess prior ignorance about. "Some parts higher than others" less surprising, as I didn't think he thought mountains and valleys were illusions or rumors. Cake (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Routledge Companion to Ancient Philosophy also says disk. Cake (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent changes and sorry for not getting back earlier re trapezoid shape but I think I have now got to the bottom of it. Basically, you are right that trapeza/trapezion can mean either "table" (but not a table-top) or trapezium (obviously, this is just the Latinised Greek word). [12] On the other hand, Plut., placita 895D has Ἀναξιμένης τραπεζοειδῆ (Anaximenes trapezoeide). The word trapezoeides can only mean "trapezium-shaped" (LSJ: [13]), NOT "table-shaped". This is not original research, this is just looking up a foreign-language word in a dictionary (Liddell-Scott-Jones is the standard reference work for Greek-English). But if you want to verify this, have a look at the TLG in case you have access. You can go on text search [14] and enter "τραπεζοειδ". Even if you can't read the Greek, you will see that all attestations are from geomatrical works, e.g. Strabo, Euclid, and Hero of Alexandria, and their later commentators. So this really all means "trapezium-shaped", not "table-shaped". The translation above [15] is not peer-reviewed and therefore not a reliable source for Wikipedia standards. There are perhaps a few scholars who think the earth according to Anaximenes looked like a table (in whatever form, but normally rectangular, or more like the lid covering the air), but there also others who (correctly) have the "trapezium-shaped". Rominator (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you inspired me to do the whole article after I added my one frisbee sentence (feel free to edit and tear it up). Lots of "journalistic" stuff about Milesian insight in general had to go. I can't find anybody other than you saying trapezoid. For example Burnet says "table-like disk" which is pretty clear. And looking up etymology for trapezoid, it says it comes from the word for table, rather than vice versa. But assuming you are correct, it's surely worth a footnote. I don't think we can put it there unless we find another scholar saying they translated it wrong. For some original research on my parts, it looks to me like his different shapes of the earth and other celestial bodies influenced the atomists different shapes of the atoms. One can draw a line from him to Democritus, and those are the other philosophers I can think of saying "it's shaped like a leaf." I also wish I knew enough to add Hermann Alexander Diels' insights to the article. Cake (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other scholars (in addition to those mentioned above) who say that Anaximenes' earth looked like a trapezium, e.g.: According to him [Anaximenes] the earth is a plane, an unequilateral rectangle, a kind of trapezoid floating on the pressure of the air beneath it. (Peter H. Gommers, Europe - what's in a name?, Leuven University Press 33 [16]). Or this blog (and the underlying literature: He theorized that the Earth, which was created by air, was trapezoid in shape and that the world turns like a mill. [17]. Also, Pseudo-Plutarch, Placita philosophorum 888b (movement within the universe) is now missing in the article. Rominator (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems helpful. The translation it gives is "Anaximenes declares that the circumference of heaven is the limit of the earth's revolution". I'm not sure what I say about that. Forgive me if I deleted something helpful. Pseudo-Plutarch deserves a mention in the body, as does Diels-Kranz numbering and all. Cake (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plut., placita 888b: Ἀναξιμένης τὴν περιφορὰν τὴν ἐξωτάτω γηίνην = "Anaximenes [says that] the revolving vault [of heaven] is the utmost frontier of the earth." I can add this, and where applicable, also the Diels-Kranz numbering (probably not before the weekend, though). I'm still puzzled by the trapezoid shape, as 894d reads: "Thales, the Stoics, and their followers say that the earth is globular. Anaximander, that it resembles a smooth stony pillar. Anaximenes, that it has the shape of a trapezium, Leucippus, of a drum. Democritus, that it is like a quoit externally, and hollow in the middle." - So, whether spherical or flat earth supporters, all of these philosophical opinions describe the earth in three dimensions. In line with the above quotation (earth surrounded by the heavenly sphere), I still think the trapezium shape is in terms of height, not length, and this better explains why the earth is tilted towards the north. But I admit, that there is probably no scholarly support (currently published) for this view. Rominator (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perplexed myself whether it is a table, with legs, or just a table top, or a trapezoid or other shape. Who Pseudo-Plutarch is and what he has to say about Anaximenes deserves a mention for sure, but I think the Stephanus numbering confused me. Apparently it was Diels who figured Apollodorus using the age of 40 did the various Pre-Socratic lifetime reckoning. Had he written more in English I'd give his interpretation. Something about his father or death is probably asking too much. He's too old even for some fake, illustrative death like that he asphyxiated or hyperventilated. I guess that starts with the next generation of Pythagoras or Heraclitus. Cake (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Bicknell can be trusted, Aetius 2.14.3 says Anaximenes says the world has a boundary. Bicknell then goes on to talk about the firmament in various other philosophers. So, the part which speaks about the Earth having a dome, is probably a natural spot to reference Aetius and the quote from Pseudo-Plutarch you worried about not having a place. Not that I'm confident it's talking about a firmament, it sounds that way, or at least about world-boundaries. Cake (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the aforementioned "Sources for Ancient Greek Philosophy" by Cohen, Curd, and Reeve, the section for Xenophanes seems to take the same interpretation I did for Anaximenes - that if the Sun goes around and not under the Earth, then it's a flat earth with turtles all the way down. They mess up a few DK numbers, so maybe it was a misprint. Though Xenophanes agreeing with another pre-socratic wouldn't surprise me. "He argued that the Earth is indefinitely broad and extends downward indefinitely, thus rejecting the view that the Sun travels under the Earth." So, it seems to me we can add Laertius to the sources saying Anaximenes believed in a flat Earth, along with the usual cosmological sources of Pseudo-Plutarch and Hippolytus. And that's not saying Laertius is always right.

PS I seem to get into squabbles because editors are told e. g. Laertius is a "primary source" because he's old, when he's clearly a secondary source. Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy wouldn't be a primary source were it published before the fall of Rome. The same for Laertius. The very difference between A and B in Diels-Kranz is that A is secondary and B is primary, and A1 is often Laertius. In fact, while saying he's a primary source and I can't use him, they use complaints that only apply to secondary sources, e. g. he's a biased Epicurean interpreter. It seems to me absurd to imagine somebody could read an encyclopedia article on a Pre-Socratic and learn nothing about Diogenes Laertius, and which claims come from him. Even if he were a primary source, and he isn't, it would be like not mentioning the B fragments having their exact words. Then the solution would just be to also cite others, not abandon citing him. It's not like I'm waxing philosophical about their B fragments, and when that's all I can do, I welcome the future edits or revisions. It's why I hope to get your edit on that bit of Pseudo-Plutarch. Notice I didn't object to the edits to Heraclitus's article. It was previously nearly all Greek and unhelpful. I did my best to edit it. It's now been edited further, and I think improved, though I do wish it had a few quotes isolated given the oracular style. But, for example,"Souls smell in Hades" and "If all were smoke, smell would distinguish things" I had nothing to say except "Smell seemed to play a role in Heraclitus's philosophy". It's now my understanding via Nussbaum that it meant somehow to ridicule the notion of shade. Cake (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I think perhaps because I made the Italian School article, which seems to me is as problematic (e. g., no school charter survives) and as sourced from Laertius as the Ionian School, one may think I am interpreting by saying philosophy's center shifts to Italy after the death of Anaximenes. But see the sources. I'm not saying that myself. In fact the timeline seems to me curious, the revolt against Pythagoreanism in 509 BC is well before the capture of Miletus. However it's also true that Pythagoreanism lived on across the Tarantine Gulf, as noted in the School article. There are sources which characterize Anaxagoras as "Ionian philosophy makes a comeback". Cake (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenes Laertius is a primary source in the sense that he wrote at a time when he still had access to many works of antiquity now lost. He is later than most other authorities, but he is also less polemical and negative about this school or philosophers in general. In Diels-Kranz A means "Leben und Lehre" ("Life and teaching") and B is fragments (passages thought to be quoted verbatim from Anaximenes by later ancient authors who are still extant today). Rominator (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I suppose, and he is also a primary if he were to supply a quote or some such. But, he's more relevantly a secondary source in the sense that he's a series of biographies or a history of philosophy. The history of histories of philosophy starts with Laertius. A secondary source in the sense that he is not the author of nor contemporary with the source material, the most relevant sense. And if we had the sources from antiquity, say Theophrastus's history of philosophy, then that would be a secondary source, and Diogenes would be a tertiary source. If he were a primary source, then he couldn't be biased or anything else that comes with criticizing him as an interpreter. He wouldn't be an interpreter. He would be the interpreted. I'm also of course aware that for Diels-Kranz, A means testimonia and B means fragments - i. e., exact words. But that's the same distinction between secondary and primary. Commentary by other authors, and the authors words themselves. (It also has the "C" category for secondary sources that are parodies or whatever. Lucian's Sale of Philosophers seems the paradigm "C" DK source.) Cake (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS It also seems to me absolutely nothing is stopping an editor from saying "Recent scholarship says this bit from Laertius (or whoever) is completely wrong for reasons x y and z see Author year". Instead deleting references to Laertius just hurts a reader who wants to learn about the presocratics and which claims are from where. It seems to me even if the usual story is wrong, knowing the usual story is part of it. And I don't think there's that kind of confidence one way or the other about whether the usual story is wrong or right.

PPS It also seems to me the reasons for doubting the Italian school as any coherent concept is because of scholarship denying Xenophanes was an Eleatic or Pythagorean, rather than denying he went to Italy, as I understand. It's similarly fashionable (see above where I mention Owen) these days to say Parmenides wasn't a Pythagorean. But not to say he didn't come from Elea, of course. It seems to me scholarship denies the usual account that they were (philosophical) descendants, but not that they weren't cousins. I would suspect out of convenience or at least out of geography ancients classed Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Parmenides as descendants rather than out of delusion. Makes one wonder similarly about the Milesians though. Cake (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we don't have anything of Anaximenes' works or even a contemporary source. Authors attesting something about the life or work or even a few quotations lived much later in antiquity. I simply regard sources from antiquity (up to Late Antiquity or, in Greek, even up to the Byzantine period) as primary as opposed to modern scholarship (secondary). In the case of Diogenes Laertius, it is particularly obvious that he had a much greater amount of ancient works at his disposal than we have today. Rominator (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be supported by a few wikipedians there, but that seems to me proprietary or idiosyncratic at best. At least as I understand, secondary or primary source is a timeless quality, and has more to do with the genre. An autobiography is a primary source. A biography is a secondary source. If the work is "derivative" and about others work, it's secondary, and a history of philosophy or a collection of biographies is the paradigm case. Such as Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Russell didn't come up with all the ideas in there, he's at least attempting to relay the views of others. That is uncontroversially a secondary source. But, it seems to me, then Diogenes should be too. It seems absurd to say Russell's work would become an autobiography rather than a history of philosophy were he to have been born earlier, yet that's what I hear when they say Laertius is a primary source because he's so old. Further, Laertius and Aristotle are very often criticized for being biased or so far removed from the presocratics and so forth that quite literally only applies to a secondary source. You can't criticize an autobiography in the same way. They both cite others, even if who they cite is lost, which is what makes a secondary source secondary. In fact, it seems to me the oft phony letters Diogenes uses, such as Anaximenes writing to Pythagoras, are to supplement his (secondary) work with primary sources. Cake (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS On Trapezoid, with so many commentators choosing it to mean literally table-shaped rather than trapezoid-shaped, I do wonder if there's some hidden inference about the history of maths and the use of that term not being in vogue. Rightly or wrongly, say they thought Eudoxus or Euclid or Proclus or whoever later than Anaximenes invented the geometrical use of the term, then their interpretation might make sense. Cake (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you only mean the ancient period, then it is reasonable to say that Diogenes Laertius was secondary literature at the time of writing. When distinguishing primary sources (ancient material, before antiquity was forgotten during the middle ages) from secondary literature, then a modern handbook, like that by Russell, does count as the latter, but Diognes Laertius is still a historical source. E.g. if we want to challenge Russell, we can use Diogenes Laertius, but not vice versa.

You are basically right that trapeza means "table". However, the geometrical term for "trapezium" is trapezion and this is the term used by Euclid, for example, elements 1,22. τραπεζοειδής means "trapezium-shaped", not "table-shaped". The point is that Pseudo-Plutarch (Roman imperial period) used τραπεζοειδής, at a time when the meaning of "trapezium-shaped" was well established. This is not thought to be a direct quotation from Anaximenes. Rominator (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would say whether something is a trustworthy or reliable source is different from whether it's a primary or secondary source, which, in the very name, means whether it was first-hand or second-hand. Both seem relevant factors, but quite different. And whether something is old-fashioned seems another factor. I don't find contradiction in saying about Laertius that it is the oldest history of philosophy, and that all history of philosophy is secondary source literature. It seems to me the usual take on wikipedia is that it is a contradiction, and what gets me so perplexed about such a response to good-faith edits. The point about checking is true - but it seems to me like saying we can check this article by checking Guthrie, we can't check Guthrie by checking this article, and that therefore Guthrie is a primary source, rather than it makes wikipedia or Russell a tertiary source. I wouldn't understand "secondary source in its time" I would only understand secondary source or not. Flipping over a copy of Russell and finding a date of 200 BC and restricting it to only those philosophers would not make it a primary source, and certainly not on Anaximenes. It would make it more reliable in one sense of being (more) contemporary and less reliable in another of being old fashioned, it seems to me. It feels as if those committed to the view that Laertius is only old-fashioned and for the dustbin try to impose on me the view that it is a indisputably reliable, contemporary primary source. While mostly I am trying to source what was already there in the article.

Your point about Pseudo-Plutarch and not Anaximenes being the source is a good one. I was merely speculating on why - assuming you are correct - the sources seem to (slightly) favor "table-shaped". I was noticing a few different versions of when the geometrical term "trapezoid" came into use, and was thinking maybe that was why. Maybe the disagreement in translation of trapezoid between you and e. g. Guthrie is grounded in a disagreement in the history of mathematics. I don't remember anything about it from my copy of Boyer & Merzbach, but it would make sense. And of course, I assume why trapezoid means table-shaped is because a table-top was often trapezoid-shaped. That's an inference but another one which makes sense of the data I've seen.

PS should the article say anything about the Stoics ideas on pneuma? Cake (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenes Laertius is not the first history of philosophy. Most philosophical works from antiquity are lost today, but we still have, for example, Sextus Empiricus, and he too gives an overview of philosophical views. So there are two separate traditions, one is the unbroken tradition of antiquity, the other (like Guthrie or Russell) the modern treatment of what is extant from the ancient tradition. This does not mean that Diogenes Laertius is more reliable than a modern scholar, he had his own views and biases, just that he still had access to knowledge that is lost today.

I think the commentators are all based on an old translations (probably the one by John Dryden in the 17th century), and never bothered to check the Greek text, and the knowledge of the true meaning of τραπεζοειδής is more recent than the English translations. Rominator (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The Stoic school is later than Anaximenes, so the Stoics could have borrowed from him, but this is speculative and unlikely. Rominator (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While Sextus and of course say Aristotle go over the history, Laertius oft gets the title as the oldest thing published as a history of philosophy rather than a defense of skepticism or Aristotelianism (or Epicureanism in his case), along with the remark that histories of philosophy for generations were little more than recapitulations of Laertius. That's how the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1961, 4 vols.) article on "history of philosophy" treats it, for example. That seems to be the source of the controversy to me, that it's "oldest extant history of philosophy" and my detractors focus on "oldest extant" and I focus on "history of philosophy". "oldest extant biography" doesn't make a biography any closer to an autobiography, so I get either tongue-tied or rambling as here. Of course the Stoics were later than Anaximenes, but the question is whether they should be added to the "legacy" section; whether they saw Anaximenes as a precursor to their doctrines about pneuma. Interesting if so many Greek scholars never checked the Greek. I would sure prefer the story that lurking in the background is a story about the history of geometrical terms rather than laziness. Cake (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS Is the engraving by Cort depicting Anaximenes? It appears to depict abstract Dialectic. Note its feet on books of Aristotle or Gorgias, too late for Anaximenes. However, the next engraving in the series, Astrology does have "Anaximenes" on one of the books. Still pretty cool, but not sure old man speaking with bird on her head is Anaximenes. It seems like Thales has a standard way he looks one figures must be from some ancient, sculpted bust somewhere, which makes me hopeful for any of the other faceless presocratics. Cake (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diogenes Laertius is an example of ancient Doxography, but there were others (on this, see the article). Pseudo-Plutarch is another example. Diogenes Laertius still wrote at a time undisturbed by the progress of Christianity. But there were later doxographers as well, such as Eunapius' Lives of the philosophers and sophists. After the triumph of Christianity, there was obviously very little interest in pagan philosophy - until Renaissance humanism. I don't know of a source that indicates the Stoic pneuma was based on Anaximenes - this seems unlikely given the different directions. I don't know if the engraving by Cork (the one in the article) depicts Anaxmimenes, the picture itself (the Latin) does not indicate this. Rominator (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prior editor got confused. The engravings come two on each page, and the Dialectica one is above Astrologia, which has a book with Anaximenes name on it. You're right of course that Diogenes wasn't the first doxographer, and both Pseudo-Plutarch and Hippolytus has been our friend in this article. In fact a few say the hat line should be a B fragment - that it's only in Hippolytus because he quotes Anaximenes. Still, it is my understanding the oldest extant "Thales to the present time" history of ideas is Diogenes. As I understand, Diogenes is the closest thing we have to Theophrastus' or Sotion's histories, which seem the ancient equivalents of Russell's or Coplestone's. The Cambridge article goes over the various books after Diogenes, such as Thomas Stanley's, and how for ages they are Laertius redux. As I recall it gives one of them the title of first history of philosophy to go beyond him. Maybe an analogy with Aristotelian logic or physics is warranted. It's hardly the end of the story, but for ages it was the story, and so is ignored in contemporary philosophy and of intense interest for history of philosophy. Cake (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does "king's power" work for his name? Best I could manage, for it's Anax plus menes like in Menelaus, as I understand. Cake (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to toss another monkey-wrench into the issue of whether it's trapezoid or table - Euclidean or flat geometry is often characterized as on an infinite table top, as that's the flat thing upon one is doing the calculations. That may also be influencing their naivete with translations. Cake (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @MisterCake. I've completed my copy edit per your GOCE request. I left some inline tags in the article, primarily for clarification or to add in the actual Ancient Greek word it is first mentioned. In general, I think the sections on his philosophy could use some expansion. In particular, more on modern philosophical interpretations of Anaximenes' work is needed. In addition, to avoid NPOV issues, be careful about who claims are attributed to. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it and trust you are right on all counts. I certainly did not think it was "done" even if I thought it needed an editor. And I would like to know more Anaximenes specialists. At least in my ignorance he doesn't seem as attractive as other Pre-Socratics in that regard. Cake (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]