Abstract
It lias been said that Aristotle, being intent on establishing his own system, was often inaccurate or negligent in his description of the presocratic philosophers He is said to have written about them only for the purpose of either illustrating how they are wrong as compared with his own views, or showing their ideas as confirmations of his own, which are always true He is, after all, not motivated by any historical sense, and turns out to be incorrect and at times unjust in his historical treatment As against him, it is said, Theophrastus, thought not prompted by any different motive, is more impartial and correct concerning the early Greek philosophy There is a third opinion that Theophrastus is in all essentials only repeating interpretations he found in Aristotle and they have, therefore, the same deficiencies, in fine, he too is a biased witness and even less trustworthy than Aristotle In view of these three interpretations, the present writer scrutinizes the problem deliberately confining himself to a single item το απειρον of Anaximander He knows that such a limited method of treatment is inadequate, and may even be dangerous, but he is also convinced that even though he restricts hisv problem to such a small aspect, he can come to a conclusion which has some value In sum there can be no choice between Aristotle and Theophrastus in regard to the presocratic causes in general Sometimes incorrect and inattentive as he is, the former is quite reliable as a historian, and the latter surely follows his master's interpretations faithfully without being blind to the blunders and omissions on his part Any issue has to be solved through consulting both of them together with other sources, and, carefully adopting or rejecting them
