tion to one another-air is cold, water is moist, and fire hot-and, therefore, if any one of them were unbounded, the rest would have ceased to be by this time..." Anaximander's warring opposites commit injustice upon eachother and this relationship is evident in such natural phenomena as the cyclical revolution of the seasons. In his theory, it is interesting to note, however, that Anaximander does not rely solely on the theory of opposition. Although opposition is central to his argument, he does introduce the superior, unbounded, unifying factor of Time. The next philosopher I will discuss with regard to this topic is Heraclitus.The way Heraclitus uses the theme of opposition is similar to that we saw with Anaximander. Heraclitus' philisophical argument centers largely around the theme of opposition. He reasons that reality is, contradictorily, both one and many and can be accounted for through an understanding of the unity of opposites. Heraclitus belives that the essence of things is strife caused by the battle between opposites. He asserts that whenever one thing is changing , it is changing into its opposite. Simply put, in changing, a certain thing is moving from what it is to what it is not. One circumstance he uses to illustrate this principle of opposition is in the consideration that things brought togerther necessarily bring others apart. Using the analogy of a bow and arrow, he draws a clear example of how unity is achieved when parts work in opposition to eachother. In this way, Heraclitus accounts for the changing universe through the utilization of opposition. This, then, sets up a cyclical movement to the universe caused by opposition similar to that evident in Anaximander's discussion. A further similarity between the two philosophers exists. Similar to the way Anaximander introduced the concept of Time to his argument as a unifying, balancing factor, Heraclitus involves the similar concept, Logos, whi...
