Anaximenes of Miletus

1. Introduction

Anaximenes of Miletus (c. 586–525 BCE) is traditionally regarded as the third and last major figure of the Milesian school of early Greek philosophy. He is chiefly known for the claim that air (aēr) is the single underlying archē, or fundamental principle, from which all things arise and into which they return. Within early Greek thought, this places him among the material monists, who explain the world’s diversity in terms of transformations of one basic substance.

Ancient reports credit Anaximenes with introducing a more explicit mechanism of change than his Milesian predecessors: qualitative differences in things are said to result from rarefaction and condensation, processes by which air becomes thinner or thicker. Through a graded sequence of these density-changes, air is held to generate fire, wind, cloud, water, earth, and stone, as well as the cosmos as a whole.

Anaximenes’ philosophy extends beyond cosmology narrowly conceived. He links cosmic air to the human soul (psychē) and even to the gods, offering a unified picture in which physical, psychic, and divine realities are expressions of the same underlying medium. His work thus stands at a crossroads between mythological worldviews and later philosophical naturalism.

Modern scholars approach Anaximenes largely through later doxographical sources, especially summaries attributed to Theophrastus and preserved by authors such as Aetius, Hippolytus, and Pseudo-Plutarch. These testimonies have prompted varied interpretations: some portray him as simplifying Anaximander’s more abstract concept of the apeiron, while others emphasize his innovations in explanatory method and his role in the emergence of lawlike, quasi-scientific accounts of nature.

This entry examines Anaximenes’ life and context, the fragmentary evidence for his ideas, and the main features of his philosophy—his doctrine of air, his metaphysics, cosmology, psychology, and theology—as well as his later reception and the debates surrounding his historical significance.

2. Life and Historical Context

2.1 Biographical Outline

Very little is known with certainty about Anaximenes’ life. Ancient chronographers place his birth around 586 BCE and his death around 525 BCE, both probably in Miletus. Most testimonies describe him as a younger associate or student of Anaximander, though the exact nature of this relationship is uncertain.

Ancient sources do not mention official roles, travels, or political activity. Some modern scholars cautiously infer that, like other Milesian thinkers, he may have belonged to the city’s educated elite, engaged in civic and commercial life alongside philosophical pursuits, but this remains conjectural.

2.2 Political and Cultural Setting

Anaximenes lived during a period of profound change in Ionia:

• The economic prosperity of Miletus in the 7th–6th centuries BCE, based on maritime trade and colonization.
• The eventual Persian conquest of Ionia (c. 546 BCE) under Cyrus the Great.

Some interpreters suggest that the experience of living in a small, politically vulnerable city within a vastly expanded imperial order may have encouraged conceptions of a large, encompassing cosmos governed by regular processes rather than capricious gods. Others regard such connections as speculative, emphasizing instead the internal development of Milesian philosophy.

2.3 Intellectual Context

Anaximenes’ floruit coincides with a broader cultural shift in archaic Greece:

• The rise of literacy and the use of prose for technical and philosophical exposition.
• Increased contact with Near Eastern civilizations, which may have transmitted astronomical and meteorological ideas.
• Continuing tension and overlap between mythic-poetic explanations (as in Hesiod) and naturalistic accounts.

Within this context, Anaximenes’ choice of air as archē and his appeal to observable processes of change are typically seen as part of a wider movement in Ionia toward systematic, non-mythological explanations, even though religious beliefs and traditional cults remained socially dominant.

3. Miletus and the Ionian Intellectual Milieu

3.1 Miletus as a Cultural Hub

Miletus, on the western coast of Asia Minor, was among the wealthiest and most outward-looking Greek cities of the archaic period. It maintained:

• Extensive trade networks throughout the Mediterranean and Black Sea.
• A tradition of colonization, founding cities such as Sinope and Cyrene.
• Close interactions with Lydia, Persia, and other Near Eastern cultures.

Many historians argue that this cosmopolitan environment fostered comparative observation of different customs and natural environments, which in turn encouraged generalizing, theoretical thought of the sort visible in Milesian philosophy.

3.2 Ionian Natural Inquiry

The intellectual milieu of Ionia is often characterized by:

• Interest in astronomy and calendrics to support navigation and agriculture.
• Early geographical and ethnographic speculation.
• A tendency to conceptualize the world as a kosmos, an ordered whole.

Within this setting, thinkers such as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes are presented in later sources as pioneers of physis-inquiry—investigation into nature’s underlying structure and processes.

3.3 Religious and Mythic Backdrop

The Milesian milieu remained thoroughly religious:

• Cults of deities like Apollo and Artemis were central to civic life.
• Mythopoetic cosmogonies (e.g., Hesiod’s Theogony) continued to shape popular understandings of the world.

Scholars debate how sharply Milesian philosophy diverged from this background. One interpretive strand emphasizes a radical break, reading Anaximenes’ naturalistic explanations as a conscious alternative to myth. Another highlights continuities, noting that he still speaks of gods arising from air and employs religiously resonant notions such as the soul’s cosmic role.

3.4 Networks of Knowledge

Miletus was also embedded in wider intellectual networks:

While direct lines of influence on Anaximenes cannot be firmly traced, many researchers view his cosmology and meteorology as crystallizing habits of empirical observation and model-building that circulated among seafarers, artisans, and temple experts in the Ionian cities.

4. Sources and Doxographical Tradition

4.1 Loss of Original Works

No complete work by Anaximenes survives. Ancient writers attribute to him a prose treatise titled On Nature (Peri Physeos), but this text is entirely lost. Modern reconstructions rely on later testimonia (reports about his doctrines) and a very small number of short fragments or paraphrased sayings.

4.2 Main Ancient Witnesses

The most important sources are mediated through the Peripatetic tradition:

Most of these authors are separated from Anaximenes by several centuries and often rely, directly or indirectly, on Theophrastus’ lost works on earlier philosophers.

4.3 Reliability and Bias

Scholars identify several potential distortions:

• Systematization: Theophrastus tends to categorize doctrines to fit Peripatetic concerns (e.g., matter, cause, motion), which may simplify Anaximenes’ views.
• Comparative Framing: Doxographers often define Anaximenes primarily by contrast with Thales and Anaximander, possibly exaggerating linear “development.”
• Christian and Skeptical Agendas: Authors like Hippolytus and Cicero sometimes deploy Presocratic doctrines to critique pagan religion or philosophical rivals.

Some researchers nonetheless consider the overall picture relatively stable across different witnesses, lending a degree of confidence to core claims (air as archē, rarefaction/condensation, flat earth on air). Others warn that even these seemingly secure points may reflect doxographical schematism rather than verbatim doctrine.

4.4 Modern Collections and Numbering

Modern scholarship typically cites Anaximenes using standard collections:

These compilations distinguish between “fragments” (purported direct quotations) and “testimonia” (indirect reports), though the boundary is often debated. The famous comparison of soul and air, for example, is usually treated as a fragment (DK 13 B2), but its exact wording and context remain uncertain.

5. Intellectual Development and Milesian Background

5.1 Position within the Milesian Line

Ancient tradition presents Anaximenes as following Thales and Anaximander in a sequence of Milesian natural philosophers. This background frames his work as a response to two earlier proposals for the archē:

• Thales: water
• Anaximander: the apeiron (indefinite or boundless)

Anaximenes’ choice of air is often interpreted as both conserving and modifying this heritage.

5.2 Formation under Anaximander

Several sources mention Anaximenes as a pupil or companion of Anaximander. Many scholars infer that:

• He adopted Anaximander’s interest in cosmology, astronomy, and maps of the earth and heavens.
• He was familiar with the idea of a single, all-encompassing principle.

However, he diverges from Anaximander by selecting a concrete, sensory substance (air) rather than an indeterminate principle. Some interpreters regard this as a “step back” toward naïve materialism; others see it as a deliberate re-specification of the apeiron, preserving its pervasiveness while making it observably present.

5.3 Engagement with Thales’ Legacy

Anaximenes’ doctrine also relates to Thales:

• Both pick an everyday substance (water/air) as archē.
• Both envisage a life-like or divine quality in matter.

On some readings, Anaximenes synthesizes the tangibility of Thales’ water with the cosmic scope of Anaximander’s apeiron, choosing a medium that is at once pervasive, indefinite in extension, and empirically accessible.

5.4 Phases of Development (as Reconstructed)

Modern scholars sometimes propose stages in Anaximenes’ intellectual development, though these are hypothetical:

Some historians argue that these “phases” simply mirror the thematic organization of doxographical sources rather than distinct periods of Anaximenes’ own life. Nonetheless, they help situate his doctrine as both continuous with and innovative within the Milesian tradition, preparing the way for later Presocratics who will further refine explanations of change, plurality, and cosmic order.

6. Major Work: On Nature (Peri Physeos)

6.1 Existence and Form of the Treatise

Ancient testimonies ascribe to Anaximenes a prose work titled On Nature (Περὶ φύσεως). Although no manuscript survives, several features are widely inferred:

• It was likely among the earliest Greek philosophical works in prose, marking a shift from poetic exposition.
• It probably presented a continuous account of the origin and structure of the cosmos, rather than a collection of aphorisms.

Some scholars question whether On Nature was Anaximenes’ own title or a generic label applied retroactively to early cosmological treatises. Others propose that the work might have circulated without an authorial title and later been categorized by librarians and doxographers.

6.2 Probable Content

Based on doxographical summaries, researchers reconstruct several major components:

Some interpret the famous analogy:

"

“Just as our soul, being air, holds us together and governs us, so breath and air encompass the whole cosmos.”

as a central programmatic statement from this treatise, though its exact placement is unknown.

6.3 Style and Audience

Later reports suggest that Milesian prose was succinct and unembellished, contrasting with poetic cosmogonies. Anaximenes’ use of everyday analogies (such as breath cooling when compressed) indicates an attempt to ground arguments in accessible experience, perhaps addressing a relatively broad, educated audience within Miletus rather than a closed school.

6.4 Transmission and Loss

The treatise’s loss is commonly attributed to:

• The fragility of early book production (papyrus rolls).
• Limited copying in later antiquity, as later systems (e.g., Plato, Aristotle, Stoics) overshadowed earlier cosmologies.
• Replacement of original texts by doxographical digests, which many readers may have regarded as sufficient.

Modern attempts to “reconstruct” On Nature are highly speculative, piecing together themes and arguments from scattered testimonies rather than attempting a line-by-line restoration.

7. Core Philosophy: Air as Archē

7.1 Choice of Air

Anaximenes’ central thesis is that air (aēr) is the archē, the underlying material principle of all things. Ancient sources emphasize that, unlike Anaximander’s apeiron, this principle is:

• Definite: a recognizable, everyday substance.
• Infinite in extent: boundless or limitless in quantity.
• Ever-moving: not static but in constant motion.

Proponents of this reconstruction argue that air combines concreteness with cosmic scope, being both immediately perceptible (we breathe it) and omnipresent.

7.2 Air’s Transformative Capacities

According to Hippolytus and other doxographers, Anaximenes explains diversity through changes in the density of air:

"

“He says that air differs in substance according to rarity and density. When it is thinned, it becomes fire; when it is thickened, it becomes wind, then cloud; when condensed still more, it becomes water; when more condensed, earth; and, at the densest, stones.”

This sequence presents air as a continuum capable of generating all familiar substances. Some scholars interpret this as an early form of quantitative explanation: qualitative differences derive from more or less of a single property (density).

7.3 Microcosm–Macrocosm Analogy

The fragment comparing the human soul to cosmic air suggests that Anaximenes grounds his doctrine partly in anthropological experience:

• Human life depends on breath (air).
• The cosmos, analogously, is held together and governed by air.

Some interpret this as an argument by analogy from the microcosm (the human) to the macrocosm (the universe); others see it as expressing a holistic ontology in which individual and world share a common material and vital basis.

7.4 Interpretive Debates

Modern debates focus on several questions:

• Is Anaximenes’ air purely physical, or does it also have psychic or divine attributes?
• Does he conceive air’s transformations in terms of lawlike necessity, or as more loosely patterned processes?
• How strongly does his doctrine depend on empirical observations (e.g., the feel of breath when compressed vs. released)?

Different answers yield portraits of Anaximenes ranging from a quasi-scientific naturalist to a thinker still deeply rooted in vitalistic and religious conceptions of nature.

8. Metaphysics and Material Monism

8.1 Material Monism

Anaximenes is widely classified as a material monist: reality is fundamentally one kind of stuff, air, in varying states. This view encompasses:

• The origin of things (“from air all things come to be”).
• Their persistence (“they remain, in some sense, air throughout”).
• Their dissolution (“into air they return”).

Some interpreters regard this as a simple, unified ontology that avoids positing multiple basic substances. Others emphasize tensions between unity of substrate and diversity of forms that later Presocratics will address more explicitly.

8.2 Infinite and Ever-Moving

Doxographical reports attribute to Anaximenes the claim that air is infinite (apeiron) and always in motion. Metaphysically, this implies:

• Spatial infinity: no outer boundary to the extent of air.
• Temporal continuity: no beginning or end to its motion.

Scholars debate whether these properties are inherited from Anaximander’s apeiron or independently motivated. Some argue that the infinite nature of the archē ensures an inexhaustible source for cosmic processes; others treat the attribution of infinity as a Peripatetic retrojection.

8.3 Substance, Qualities, and Change

In Anaximenes’ system, change is explained not by replacement of one substance by another, but by modification of a single substrate along a scale of density. This raises metaphysical questions:

• Is air, in all its forms, numerically one (the same entity differently qualified), or merely qualitatively one (same kind, many instances)?
• Are the resulting forms (fire, water, earth, etc.) modes of air, or distinct substances “composed from” air?

Some scholars read Anaximenes as an early proponent of the idea that qualitative differences can be reduced to quantitative variations, anticipating later notions of matter and property. Others caution that the doxographical language may over-intellectualize his account, projecting later metaphysical categories back onto him.

8.4 Order and Necessity

Anaximenes’ ordered sequence of transformations suggests a rudimentary form of metaphysical regularity:

• Rarefaction tends toward heat and light (fire).
• Condensation tends toward coolness, moisture, solidity (water, earth, stone).

Interpretations diverge on whether this reflects a belief in necessary, lawlike connections within matter or simply a descriptive pattern drawn from everyday experience (e.g., compressed breath feels hot; condensed air forms clouds). In either case, the metaphysical picture is one in which a single, enduring material reality underlies and organizes the flux of appearances.

9. Cosmology and Structure of the Universe

9.1 Earth and Its Support

Doxographers report that Anaximenes held the earth to be:

• Flat and broad, like a table or leaf.
• Supported by air, on which it “rides” or “floats.”

"

“He says that the earth is flat and rides on air…”

Some interpreters connect this to familiar observations: objects like leaves or dust motes can be seen resting on or borne by air currents, suggesting an analogy for the earth’s support. Others see this as a conceptual modification of earlier views that posited water or indefinite matter beneath the earth.

9.2 Heavens and Celestial Bodies

Anaximenes’ heavens are likewise structured through air:

• The sun, moon, and stars are described as fiery.
• They are carried by the surrounding air, sometimes compared to leaves or fiery discs moving in circles around the earth.

Doxographical accounts differ on whether the stars are fixed in crystalline spheres, attached to rotating wheels, or simply transported by rotating masses of air. This variation may reflect later systematizations rather than Anaximenes’ own details.

9.3 Spatial Arrangement

Most sources depict Anaximenes’ cosmos as layered:

The cosmos is often thought to be encompassed by air in all directions, consistent with the notion of air as an all-surrounding medium.

9.4 Cosmic Stability and Motion

A central cosmological question is how the flat earth remains stable. Anaximenes’ answer, according to later reports, is that it is supported and held in place by the surrounding air, sometimes described as compressed beneath it. Some scholars view this as an early attempt at explaining stability through pressure or balance rather than mythic pillars or divine supports.

The motions of celestial bodies are typically explained as circular, driven by the dynamics of air. Interpretations vary on whether Anaximenes posited regular, predictable paths (anticipating later astronomy) or more qualitative descriptions of rising, setting, and rotation.

9.5 Comparison with Other Early Cosmologies

Without shifting into detailed comparison (treated elsewhere), it is notable that Anaximenes’ cosmology:

• Retains the archaic flat-earth model.
• Dispenses with mythic personifications (e.g., gods driving chariots of the sun).
• Systematically connects cosmic structure with the transformations of the archē (air).

This integration of cosmology with a material principle forms a key feature of his thought as understood through the doxographical tradition.

10. Meteorology and Natural Explanations

10.1 Atmospheric Phenomena from Air

Anaximenes’ doctrine provides a framework to explain meteorological phenomena as transformations of air at different densities and temperatures. Ancient reports attribute to him accounts of:

• Winds: movements of air driven by compression and rarefaction.
• Clouds: formed when air condenses and thickens.
• Rain and hail: produced when condensed air and cloud further liquefy or solidify.
• Snow: thought to arise from more gently frozen moisture, again ultimately from air.

These explanations eschew personal divine agents in favor of continuous physical processes, though they do not deny the existence of gods.

10.2 Lightning, Thunder, and Celestial Fires

Doxographical testimonies describe further meteorological accounts:

Interpreters differ on the precise mechanisms attributed to Anaximenes, because later authors may have harmonized his views with those of other natural philosophers. Nonetheless, the general pattern treats such events as air–fire interactions rather than divine omens.

10.3 Naturalism and Observation

Many scholars view Anaximenes’ meteorology as one of the earliest attempts at a systematic natural explanation of the weather. They highlight:

• Use of observable processes (e.g., condensation of breath, formation of mist) as analogies for large-scale atmospheric events.
• A tendency to regard different phenomena (wind, cloud, rain) as stages of a continuous process of thickening and thinning air.

Critics caution that doxographical summaries might exaggerate the coherence and sophistication of his system, turning what were originally more casual explanations into a unified meteorological theory.

10.4 Relation to Religious Beliefs

Anaximenes’ naturalistic explanations coexist with a world still filled with gods. Some ancient and modern interpreters see his meteorology as demythologizing: phenomena once attributed to Zeus’ anger or divine portents are recast as regular outcomes of physical changes in air. Others argue that such explanations may have been understood as describing how the gods operate through nature, rather than as replacing them, preserving a more theologically compatible natural philosophy.

11. Soul, Theology, and the Role of Air

11.1 Soul as Air

The most famous surviving statement about Anaximenes’ psychology is preserved in Aetius:

"

“Just as our soul, being air, holds us together and governs us, so breath and air encompass the whole cosmos.”

Here the human soul (psychē) is identified with air, specifically the air we breathe. This yields a material conception of soul, in which life, cohesion, and governance of the body are functions of a particular configuration of air.

Scholars debate whether Anaximenes regarded the soul as:

• Merely a subtle physical substance, or
• A vital, quasi-divine principle with cognitive and directive powers.

Many see the language of “governing” as suggesting more than mere mechanical cohesion.

11.2 Macrocosm–Microcosm Relation

The analogy extends soul–body relations to the cosmos:

• Just as soul/air holds together and rules the body,
• So cosmic air encompasses and sustains the world.

This has been interpreted as an early statement of microcosm–macrocosm correspondence, in which humans mirror the structure of the universe. Some regard this as providing experiential grounding for the doctrine of air as archē: we directly experience air as life-giving within ourselves, and project this role onto the cosmos.

11.3 Gods from Air

Cicero reports that Anaximenes said:

"

“From air the gods and all things come to be and into it they are again dissolved.”

On this view, even the gods arise from the same material principle as everything else. Interpretations vary:

• Some see this as a radically naturalistic theology, subordinating gods to an impersonal substratum.
• Others suggest that Anaximenes conceived air itself as divine, so that gods are differentiated forms of a fundamentally sacred medium.
• A further line holds that Cicero may have filtered Anaximenes’ views through later philosophical agendas, somewhat distorting their original nuance.

11.4 Theology of Nature

Anaximenes’ system can be read as articulating a theology of nature, in which:

• The cosmos is ensouled or animated by air.
• Divinity is associated with life, motion, and order, properties exhibited by air.
• Traditional anthropomorphic gods are, at minimum, reinterpreted as phenomena or configurations within this all-encompassing medium.

Modern scholars differ on how sharply to distinguish Anaximenes from mythic religion. Some emphasize his contribution to a non-anthropomorphic, immanent conception of the divine; others stress that he still speaks in traditional terms of gods and may not have intended a polemical departure from cultic practice.

12. Method: From Observation to Lawlike Processes

12.1 Use of Everyday Analogies

Doxographical testimonies attribute to Anaximenes a set of analogies grounding his claims in common experience. A well-known example (though not verbatim preserved) involves breath:

• When one blows with open lips, the air feels warm and diffuse.
• When one blows with pursed lips, the air feels cold and concentrated.

Anaximenes is said to have used such observations to support the idea that compression and expansion of air correspond to changes in temperature and state. Many scholars see this as a primitive experimental analogy, linking micro-scale experience to macro-scale cosmic processes.

12.2 Explanation via Rarefaction and Condensation

His reliance on rarefaction and condensation as basic processes introduces a more mechanistic style of explanation:

• Changes in the world are traced back to quantitative changes in density.
• A structured sequence of transformations (from air to fire, wind, cloud, water, earth, stone) gives appearances a regular order.

Some historians regard this as an early expression of lawlike thinking, where similar causes are expected to produce similar effects. Others insist that we should not project fully developed notions of physical “laws” back onto Anaximenes, seeing his accounts instead as patterned narratives of how things usually behave.

12.3 Continuity and Causation

By treating different substances as stages of a continuous process, Anaximenes suggests a world where:

• No absolute breaks exist between elements.
• Causation is understood as gradual modification of a single substrate.

This continuity underlies his metaphysics and cosmology, but it also reflects a methodological orientation toward explaining diversity without invoking sudden, miraculous interventions.

12.4 Observation vs. Speculation

Scholars differ on how to balance empirical and speculative components in his method:

• One approach emphasizes his attention to observable phenomena (breath, clouds, weather), viewing him as a proto-empiricist.
• Another highlights the highly abstract nature of the sequence from air to stones, arguing that it extends far beyond what direct observation could verify.

Many contemporary interpretations see Anaximenes as embodying an early naturalistic methodology: phenomena are to be explained, as far as possible, by reference to material processes continuous from the familiar to the cosmic.

13. Ethical and Anthropological Implications

13.1 Human Beings as Air-Formed

If the soul is air, and the body is ultimately composed of air in more condensed forms, then humans are, on Anaximenes’ view, particular configurations of the same cosmic substrate. This suggests an anthropology in which:

• Humans are continuous with nature, not ontologically separate.
• Life and consciousness arise from the organization of matter, rather than from an entirely distinct spiritual realm.

While Anaximenes does not, as far as surviving sources show, develop an explicit ethical theory, modern scholars infer possible implications from this ontology.

13.2 Attitudes Toward Life and Death

The idea that soul is air that disperses at death might imply:

• Death as a reversion of one’s constituent air to the larger cosmic air.
• A sense of integration with the cosmos, rather than annihilation.

Some interpreters propose that this could foster an attitude of acceptance toward mortality, seeing individual life as a temporary configuration within a larger natural process. Others caution that such extrapolations go beyond the evidence, since no explicit statements on afterlife or ethics survive.

13.3 Cosmological Status of Humans

The microcosm–macrocosm analogy may carry implicit anthropological themes:

• Humans mirror the structure of the cosmos (soul:body :: air:world).
• Human rationality or governance of the body corresponds to cosmic order maintained by air.

Some scholars argue that this analogy subtly dignifies human beings, situating them as miniature expressions of the cosmic order. Others stress that it simultaneously de-centers humans, as they are made of the same stuff as everything else and subject to the same processes.

13.4 Ethical Readings in Later Traditions

Although Anaximenes himself provides no clear ethical doctrines, later philosophers and modern commentators sometimes read ethical significance into his system:

• Unity of all things in air has been associated with ideals of kinship with nature.
• The notion of a divinely inflected air sustaining all may be seen as grounding attitudes of reverence for the natural world.

These interpretations are speculative and often shaped by later philosophical or environmental concerns rather than by ancient evidence. Nonetheless, they illustrate how Anaximenes’ anthropological and cosmological ideas have been taken to bear on questions about the human place in the cosmos.

14. Comparison with Thales and Anaximander

14.1 Archē: Water, Apeiron, Air

A central comparative axis concerns the archē:

Some scholars see a progression: from concrete water to abstract apeiron to a more sophisticated concrete–infinite air. Others reject any simple developmental narrative, arguing that each choice responds to different explanatory priorities.

14.2 Mechanism of Change

In explaining how the many arise from the one:

• Thales is reported to have said relatively little about the mechanism.
• Anaximander employs separation of opposites from the apeiron and a quasi-moral “reparation” of injustices.
• Anaximenes introduces rarefaction and condensation as quantitative processes.

This has led some historians to credit Anaximenes with a methodological advance toward mechanistic explanation, while viewing Anaximander as more mythico-metaphorical. Others argue that Anaximander’s talk of opposites and justice already represents a sophisticated conceptualization and that Anaximenes’ density-based account is different rather than strictly more advanced.

14.3 Cosmological Models

All three Milesians share a flat-earth conception, but differ in details:

• Thales reportedly has the earth floating on water.
• Anaximander describes it as suspended in space, equidistant from all things.
• Anaximenes has it resting on air.

Interpretations vary on whether this reflects competing attempts to solve the same stability problem or merely alternative analogies (ship on water; object balanced; leaf on air). Some scholars emphasize growing abstraction from tangible supports (water, air) toward purely geometrical considerations (Anaximander’s equidistance).

14.4 Theological Orientation

Theological aspects also distinguish the three:

• Thales reputedly said “all things are full of gods,” suggesting a broadly animistic outlook.
• Anaximander attributes divine status to the apeiron and to cosmic wheels or rings.
• Anaximenes regards air as the principle from which even the gods arise.

Some interpreters see a trend toward naturalizing divinity, as the divine becomes more closely associated with a single, pervasive material substrate. Others caution that the fragmentary evidence prevents firm conclusions and that later doxographers may have retrofitted these thinkers into a neat progression.

15. Reception in Classical and Hellenistic Philosophy

15.1 Plato and Aristotle

Plato mentions Anaximenes only indirectly, grouping early natural philosophers together. His dialogues often caricature “physicists” who explain everything by reference to air, water, or similar substances, which many scholars take as an allusion to thinkers like Anaximenes, though not necessarily a precise criticism.

Aristotle and his school provide the most influential reception:

• In Metaphysics and Physics, Aristotle classifies Anaximenes among those who posit a single material principle.
• He contrasts Anaximenes’ definite archē (air) with Anaximander’s indefinite apeiron.
• He treats rarefaction and condensation as early attempts to explain generation and alteration.

Aristotle’s categorizations frame much later understanding, but also filter Anaximenes through Peripatetic concepts of matter and cause.

15.2 Hellenistic Doxography and Diagnosis

In the Hellenistic period, Anaximenes is mainly known through doxographical compendia:

• Theophrastus’ works (now lost) on earlier philosophers became the basis for later summaries.
• Aetius, Hippolytus, and Pseudo-Plutarch present him as one figure in a larger catalog of views about nature, soul, and gods.

Hellenistic philosophers—Stoics, Epicureans, Skeptics—rarely engage Anaximenes directly. Instead, they use doxographical surveys to position their own doctrines in relation to a past lineage of thinkers.

15.3 The Stoic Connection

Some scholars highlight affinities between Anaximenes and Stoic conceptions of divine pneuma (breath, spirit):

• Both associate a breath-like, tension-bearing medium with soul and cosmic order.
• Both see this medium as material and active.

However, most Stoic authors do not explicitly cite Anaximenes as a major influence. Modern interpreters debate whether similarities indicate direct dependence, indirect tradition, or simply convergent development within a shared Greek conceptual repertoire.

15.4 Later Antiquity

By late antiquity, Anaximenes appears primarily as a historical example:

• Simplicius and other commentators on Aristotle reproduce doxographical material about him to illustrate early positions on matter and change.
• Christian authors like Hippolytus cite him when cataloguing pagan philosophies, often to contrast them with Christian doctrine.

In these contexts, Anaximenes functions less as a living interlocutor and more as a canonical representative of early material monism, whose doctrines are summarized, classified, and occasionally criticized but rarely developed further.

16. Modern Interpretations and Scholarly Debates

16.1 From Naïve Cosmologist to Methodological Innovator

Early modern and 19th-century historians often portrayed Anaximenes as a naïve materialist, whose choice of air and sequence of elements reflected primitive speculation. In the 20th and 21st centuries, this view has been challenged:

• Some scholars emphasize his use of quantitative processes (density, rarefaction/condensation) as a methodological innovation.
• Others foreground his appeal to experiential analogies and see him as an early practitioner of empirically informed reasoning.

Debate continues over how far these features justify calling Anaximenes a precursor of scientific method.

16.2 Status of Air: Physical vs. Spiritual

Interpretations vary on whether Anaximenes’ air is:

• Primarily a physical substance, continuous with later concepts of matter.
• A vital, ensouled, or divine medium akin to Stoic pneuma.
• A hybrid notion that resists modern dualisms of matter and spirit.

Those emphasizing his soul–cosmos analogy and the origin of gods from air argue for a more “spiritualized” matter; others stress that the doxographical reports focus on physical processes, favoring a more strictly material reading.

16.3 Doxographical Skepticism

A significant strand of scholarship questions how securely we can reconstruct Anaximenes’ thought:

• Some argue that the sequence from fire to stones via rarefaction/condensation may partly reflect Peripatetic systematization, not Anaximenes’ own detailed schema.
• Others note inconsistencies among sources on issues such as heavenly bodies’ structure and the extent of air’s infinity, suggesting later elaboration.

This has led to more cautious reconstructions, focusing on a minimal core (air as archē, some role of rarefaction/condensation, flat earth on air) and treating additional details as uncertain.

16.4 Place in the History of Philosophy

Modern debates also concern Anaximenes’ historical significance:

• One view integrates him into a progressive narrative: from myth to rational explanation, from qualitative to quantitative accounts, from many substances to one.
• Another resists teleological stories, stressing that his thought is embedded in archaic Greek culture and should be understood on its own terms, without seeing it merely as a step toward later achievements.

Some scholars highlight his role as a bridge figure, connecting Milesian natural philosophy to later developments (including Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, and Stoic physics); others see his influence as relatively modest compared with that of Anaximander.

17. Legacy and Historical Significance

17.1 Contribution to Early Natural Philosophy

Anaximenes’ legacy is often summarized in terms of three core contributions:

• Material monism centered on a single, pervasive substance (air).
• A relatively explicit mechanism of change via rarefaction and condensation.
• Integration of cosmology, meteorology, psychology, and theology into a single framework grounded in that substance.

These features mark an important stage in the emergence of naturalistic explanation in Greek thought.

17.2 Influence on Later Traditions

Even though later philosophers seldom engage Anaximenes in detail, his ideas resonate in several areas:

• Concepts of pneuma in Stoicism and medicine (e.g., Hellenistic physiology) echo the notion of a breath-like medium linking body and cosmos.
• Speculations about a universal substrate and continuity of transformations remain central to later metaphysics and natural philosophy.

Whether these similarities indicate direct lines of influence or shared cultural vocabularies is debated, but Anaximenes frequently appears in modern histories as a forerunner of later theories of matter and force.

17.3 Place in the Milesian Narrative

Within the story of the Milesian school, Anaximenes is often portrayed as:

• Consolidating the monistic impulse initiated by Thales.
• Recasting Anaximander’s abstract apeiron into a more determinate, experiential medium.
• Providing a conceptual template—a single substrate plus a pair of opposed processes (thinning/thickening)—that later Presocratics could adapt or reject.

Some historians, however, warn against overemphasizing linear “progress,” suggesting that each Milesian’s system reflects different emphases rather than forming a simple ladder of advancement.

17.4 Modern Re-assessment

Contemporary scholarship has moved toward a more nuanced picture of Anaximenes:

• He is no longer seen merely as a simplistic cosmologist, but as a thinker who used analogical reasoning, quantitative gradation, and unifying principles to make sense of diverse phenomena.
• Debates over the reliability of sources and the status of air have sharpened awareness of the limits of our knowledge, while also highlighting his importance as a case study in reconstructing lost philosophies.

Within broader intellectual history, Anaximenes stands as an exemplar of the early Greek attempt to understand the world as a coherent, ordered whole, governed by processes that, at least in principle, can be grasped by human reason.