Today (2/1) we considered an objection to Thales on behalf of Anaximander. We thought it might work pretty well against the view that everything is made of water but not so well against the view that everything comes from water. Anaximander seems to have thought that the argument against Thales was sound and that his view--that everything came from something with no definite properties--avoids the objection he raised against Thales as well as relevantly similar objections. Is Anaximander right about this? Why or why not?

You are encouraged, but not required, to present and explain a valid argument for your conclusion. If you opt not to present and explain a valid argument, you must write a paragraph or two stating and defending your answer. You need not write more than that.

For next class, please read the Melissus fragments.

Also, please feel free to post or comment on any of the issues raised in class today. That is in large part what the blog is for. Contrary to popular belief, philosophy is not best done in an attic by one's self. It is best done when there is an open exchange of ideas. (If you need a less idealistic motivation, remember as well that you are required to make a certain number of substantial posts/comments and that those who make more than the required amount will be rewarded for their efforts.)