Ancient Greek philosophy is a new world view derived from ancient Greek mythology. Therefore, to introduce the background of ancient Greek philosophy, it is necessary to first talk about ancient Greek mythology. Ancient Greek mythology has dominated the spiritual world of ancient Greeks since its formation in the 9th century BC until the 6th century BC. The mythological system of ancient Greece is characterized by the personification of natural and social forces, anthropomorphism and polytheistic worship. The personification of natural forces and social forces is the realistic root of the ancient Greek myths. At that time, the ancient Greeks had low productivity and limited knowledge. They were unable to correctly understand the world and strange natural and social phenomena. Coupled with the harassment of dreams, These unexplainable natural and social phenomena are attributed to the power of gods; anthropomorphism is the psychological basis for the emergence of ancient Greek myths. The ancient Greeks relied on gods to understand natural and social phenomena, and at the same time, they regarded gods as human beings. The shape and temperament create a perceptible power; polytheistic worship, simply put, means that the ancient Greeks believed in the existence of many gods and believed in many gods, not the worship of one god. These characteristics of ancient Greek mythology determine that the ancient Greek mythology system is a blind way to understand the world, and is an ideological system that is not conducive to human development. Ancient Greek philosophy was born out of the impasse in which ancient Greek mythology could no longer promote human development. Although it is the call of the times and the requirement of society that ancient Greek philosophy should be born out of ancient Greek mythology and become a new ideological system, there were still many realistic conditions at that time. In the 6th century BC, some philosophers in Ionia in the East began to raise the issue of the origin of the world. They opposed various myths and creation theories spread in the past and believed that the origin of the world was some material elements, such as water, air, Fire, etc.; they were the first to use nature itself to explain the generation of the world, and were the earliest materialist philosophers in the West. Well-known representatives include Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Heraclitus of Ephesus. At the same time, a philosophical school with another ideological tendency emerged in southern Italy. They believed that the true nature of all things is not material elements, but some abstract principles. The Pythagoreans believed that they were "numbers". The Eleatic school, represented by Parmenides, believed that "existence" is unchangeable, neither born nor destroyed, and that what moves and changes is only the phenomenon of things. The non-material abstract principles they proposed had a great influence on the later development of idealist philosophy.

Judging from the fact that the Greeks were the first to name "philosophy", the "Greek origin" of "Western philosophy" undoubtedly implies the most original message of the word "philosophy". Asking why "philosophy" was born in ancient Greece has a genealogical significance for philosophical consciousness in the contemporary Chinese context. This article takes the interpretation and analysis of Anaximander's Proverbs as the starting point and attempts to touch upon the Greek origins of "philosophy". We ask: (1) What does Anaximander's Proverbs tell us? (2) According to this Proverb, how can we get closer to the Greek origin of philosophy? 1. Anaximander's Proverbs is the Western The most ancient maxim of thought. Anaximander was a student of Thales, the father of ancient Greek philosophy. This motto he left to later generations was the earliest motto in the Greek world that spoke about what was later named "philosophy." Through what this proverb tells us, we inquire into the original nature of "philosophy". Let us first listen to Heidegger's statement of this maxim in 1946: "...as long as we translate this maxim only in historical and philological terms, this maxim will never have any resonance. . Extraordinarily, this maxim can only have resonance when we abandon our own demands for conventional appearances by considering the causes of the current chaos of world destiny." [1] (P586) Indeed, Anaximander, who lived on the island of Samos from the end of the 7th century BC to the middle of the 6th century BC, is more than 2,500 years away from our time in terms of chronology and history. We pay more attention to this proverb. The purpose is not to clarify the original meaning of this motto in history and philology, but to respond to the "current destiny of the world" at the beginning of "philosophy" through the earliest teachings of philosophy. This proverb goes like this: All things came from it and return to it, according to necessity; for according to the course of time, they must be punished and judged for it. [2](P531) In the contemporary Chinese context, if we put aside philological or historical considerations and simply ask "what is expressed in this motto", perhaps we can find a way to understand this motto. An opportunity for dialogue. According to the usual interpretation, this proverb talks about the creation and disappearance of all things. People are accustomed to describe it as a proposition of natural philosophy, that is, the place where everything or all beings come from and return to it. When all things in the universe are born and die, life and death, what plays a dominant or controlling role behind the diversity of all things is the first principle (or called cosmic justice). Curiously, however, Anaximander's maxims do not appear in the manner of a purely natural theory, speaking of justice and injustice, punishment and compensation in all things. In this way, it incorporates moral and legal concepts into the laws of operation of all things in the universe.

Those who assume that this maxim is only talking about natural objects in the narrow sense (such as Aristotle) ??may accuse Anaximander of being careless in his choice of words, while those who think that this assumption is completely unfounded (such as Heidegger) ) noticed the characteristics of "all things" as "individual things" and understood that this sentence discussed the relationship between "limited" "individual things" and "unlimited" "original things". Obviously this motto has an obvious ethical color, but it is also talking about the inner scale and laws of the entire universe. Many subsequent interpretations and controversies focused on these two aspects. We see that although there are many different ways of interpretation, and the variety of different understandings is increasing. But there is no doubt about the following points: (1) For early philosophers, here we are mainly talking about the relationship between essence and individual things. As individual things, all things have the same origin and destruction. restrictions. The "all things" mentioned here as "individual objects" are not just natural objects, but all existing things: "natural objects"; "people, things made by people, states and states of affairs affected by what people do" ; "Devils and divine objects"[1](P541). (2) Individual objects exhibit attributes that are considered unjust (some translate as sin).

(3) Due to these attributes, individual objects are punished, and the degree of this punishment is determined by the degree of injustice within the specified time. This is the revenge it receives; and in the end these individual objects are punished. They inevitably return to the place where they originated.

The core idea of ??Anaximander’s passage is: the existence of individual objects is unjust, so it must atone for its own injustice. It has no other way but to use its own to atone for his sins. As long as we look at the fragments of Anaximander from the core of this thought, it is not difficult to understand the true intention of this passage. This means that everything that has been generated must disappear again, whether it is human life, water, heat, or force; therefore, all things that can be perceived with definite attributes are different from each other because of their individual characteristics. Being punished for their justice and heading towards decline; in this way, beings with definite attributes and composed of these attributes can never be the origin or original principle of things; furthermore, the true origin of existence is "infinite".

Here, Anaximander surpasses Thales on two points. First, he is exploring: if there is indeed an eternal "one", how is "many" possible? Secondly, he is looking for answers from the contradictory, self-consuming and self-denying nature of "many". Obviously, this proverb talks about the same problem that Thales was concerned about, that is, the "one" among the "many". However, the relationship between "individual objects" and "original objects" is endowed with "moral significance", and this relationship, as the earliest form of "being (individual objects) existence (original objects)", points to an ultimate universe The measure of justice. In its abstract form, the relationship between "individual objects and original objects" is actually the relationship between "beings and beings". The Greek origin of "philosophy" lies in this field of association.

It should be noted that for Anaximander’s thinking, the most difficult question to answer is: What is the injustice of individual things being punished and retaliated for? According to the Soviet Union According to the research of scholars such as Gu Seinov, the answer to this question in the history of philosophy can be summarized as follows: (1) The injustice of individual objects lies in the fact that they exist as individuals and that they are separated from the original foundation itself (Nestor). Er, Nietzsche, Trubetskoi and others); (2) Individual things are punished for the pleasure of existence (Schleimach); (3) Injustice already appears when individual things are created and continues throughout their existence. (Dietrich); (4) The injustice of individual objects lies in their individual separation from both infinity and other objects (Makovelsky); (5) The reason why individual objects are punished lies in human beings injustice (Ziegler); (6) Individual objects collide and then are destroyed (suffer punishment) because they do not embody ordinary things in themselves (Losev); (7) Individual objects are punished not only because They are individual beings, and because they are not limited to the limits demarcated for them, they destroy their own limits (Cosfort, Loyan). After enumerating these different views, Gusheinov and Iltlitz pointed out that the root cause of these different conclusions is the variation of the two views derived from different versions of Proverbs. The first version has the word "mutually", the second version does not. According to the second version, individual things are not punished by each other, but by the origin or principle. According to this discussion, it is easy to conclude that the injustice of individual objects is caused by breaking away from the origin of existence and becoming a single existence. But this explanation is not credible, because it contains a contradiction that is difficult to justify: if the existence of individual objects is itself unjust, then the origin of these individual objects is the source of injustice; and if injustice is to break away from the original foundation, so why is returning to the original foundation a punishment? Gusheinov and Iltlitz write: "We believe that another interpretation of Proverbs is closer to the truth. According to this understanding, Justice corresponds to the unfinished material, originary foundation of the world. In this way, the 'injustice' (sin) of individual objects does not lie in their separation from the primitive foundation, but in the process of separation from the original foundation. Justice goes backwards.

Individual objects do not fully or partially embody the same essence in themselves. They exceed the limits prescribed for them, beyond the scope of existence prescribed for them. "[3](P29) I believe that justice (dike) has an original power here, and its understanding provides us with the access to the original nature of philosophy. The power of justice is not a pair of individual objects. The violence of individual objects is a force that maintains the balance and harmony of the whole. The reason why individual objects are unjust is that they are in mutual opposition and conflict after being separated from their original origin, and each one tries to do so. Victory over the other. Without original justice, this conflict would destroy the world. Therefore, the "infinite" is justice, which as the original (that is, as a special priority) guarantees a lasting equality. This order is based on the mutuality of the relationship between individual objects. It is superior to all individual objects and forces them to follow the same laws. Based on this analysis, I think Anaximander in this proverb. Mainly to express a point of view on "the existence of beings", he regards justice as the basis of a unified and harmonious cosmic order. As the "infinite" origin, it can best express justice, and therefore it is the embodiment of justice. Because it is higher than all individual objects and can most effectively reconcile the conflicts of individual objects. "Infinite" has no original foundation, which means that there is no power to restrict justice outside of justice. Justice becomes justice for its own sake. . In such a universe, the sovereign who governs justice is denied any place, and he is unjust as an individual. The world is composed of individual entities that are in constant conflict with each other and whose common origin is The only "unlimited" that can represent justice, all individual objects are forced to obey the principle of compensation and retribution of justice, and obey an order that keeps them completely equal. Under the constraints of justice, all individual objects are equal. Although the forces are pluralistic and diverse, they can be united and coordinated in regular and balanced movements to form a unified universe. It is not difficult to see that Anaximander's conception of the order of the universe was not based on pure natural science. The motivation is more to establish a basic framework of cosmological interpretation for the ethical order of the city-state, and it can even be said to be Anaximander's interpretation of the new image of the world. We can see this argument. Basic ideas: (1) It opens up the space for ideological argumentation from three aspects: first, the physical level - the basic principles of the generation and change of all things; second, the philosophical level - the relationship between "one" and "many" The third is the ethical level - the relationship between injustice and justice. The first two levels of argumentation should be seen as serving the final ethical level of argumentation, because the one in Anaximander. In the ambiguous proverbs, various implications point to the core of ethics. (2) On the relationship between individual objects and the original, through cosmological thinking on the issue of justice, he completed three aspects of philosophical thinking. Big jump: First, jumping out of the cosmological model of mythological thinking - this is the direction Thales started. Anaximander was the first person to understand Thales' true intention. He realized that Thales used the "original" The word "original" has more connotations of social ethics; secondly, it jumps out of the scope of the ancient clan ethics of "royal power" - he ends the ethical tradition of letting individuals (individuals) take charge of justice. The problem he wants to solve It is to establish a harmonious order of justice among equal individuals; thirdly, it breaks away from the tradition of direct moral advice and moral admonishment - different from the tradition established by Hesiod (admonition) and the Seven Sages (admonition) , Anaximander integrated ethical thinking with a new cosmology, which made the moral requirements of the city no longer appear in the form of fragmentary maxims or exhortations, but pointed to the city through rigorous philosophical thinking. citizens. (3) Demonstrate the relationship between individuals (individual objects) and the city-state order through cosmological principles: First, it points out that the more fully the individual (individual) realizes the universal necessity in his own existence, the more accurately he abides by it Secondly, in the discussion about the inevitability of the world (the law of justice) and the existence of individuals, there are implicit implications for the new order of the city-state that is being formed. The crucial question is how real individuals treat the norms, laws, and traditional laws of the city-state with universal validity. 2. What exactly does Anaximander’s proverb express to us? What is presented to us in this proverb across the chronological and historical distance of more than 2,500 years? Perhaps there is no one answer to these questions. The generally accepted answer. However, our analysis reveals at least three ideological dimensions of this proverb: (1) Greek thought is presented in this proverb as a related field of "individual things-original things", and the form of this related field is "beings" -Existence" is the original topic of early Greek philosophy; (2) The justice of the universe or the just measure of originality is the crossing of "individual objects-original objects" or "existential beings-" as pointed out by Anaximander The basic clues of the vast field of connection between "existence" and "existence", thereby opening up the original concept of the original measure of justice, the original concept of early Greek philosophy; (3) In this way, Anaximander's maxims think about individual objects Destiny: in general, thinking about the fate of existence; in particular, concerning the fate of the Greeks.

As Heidegger said: "The 'necessity' thought in this proverb is the primary and highest contemplative explanation of the Greeks' experience as a share in the sending of things in the name of fate."[1]( P385) This "necessity" hides the "life world" interpreted by the original existential experience of the Greeks, which is the origin of early Greek philosophy. The above analysis of Anaximander's Proverbs provides a "horizon" to see the Greek origins of philosophy. So, following this motto, how do we get closer to the Greek origins of "philosophy"? Further, we ask: Why did "philosophy" appear in ancient Greece? Why did it appear in the Ionian region, which is very far away from the mainland of Greece? In the beginning, Why does Greek philosophy start with natural philosophy, rather than starting with social, ethical and political thinking as shown in Chinese thought? What is the significance of Greek natural philosophy to the Greek city-states? Anaximander's Proverbs The intellectual archaeological dimension of Greek thought presented makes it possible for us to respond to this inquiry. (1) Proverbs’ focus on the fate of individual objects is a symptom of early city-state life or the Greeks’ existential experience. This is the opportunity for the birth of “philosophy.” If we imagine the basic conditions of Greek social life in this period and the encounters of Greeks as individual or finite objects in city-state life, we will see that these earliest philosophers must be related to the earlier Greek Seven Sages ( Even like Hesiod, he was worried about severe social problems: the chaos of the moral status of the city-state and the crisis of the city-state order. The motto of the Seven Sages, as a crystallization of political practical wisdom, is by no means a "groundless theory", but a diagnosis and treatment of "diseases" in the city-state. Similarly, the philosophical thinking of the earliest natural philosophers cannot be mainly regarded as a product of cultural integration; from this point of view, I think the origin of philosophy mainly comes from actual conflicts within the city-state: when the native Greek A While Tica (Athens) established a new city-state order through Solon's legislation, the distant city of Miletus argued for the city-state system or the moral order of the city-state by rethinking the order of the universe. Solon used practical legislative activities to find a way out for the city-state, while Thales established a spiritual pillar for the city-state with a new cosmological thought. Anaximander's concern for the fate of individual objects undoubtedly reveals the "roots" of the life world of Greek philosophy. These are two intellectual movements that are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Knowing this, I can roughly make the following conclusions: 1. The Greeks thought about the order of the universe from the perspective of city-state life. They invented the important term "primordial" (or "original foundation"), but we don't seem to understand. It should be understood as a purely natural concept, which has more social and ethical connotations and characteristics. 2. The cosmological interpretation model of mythological thinking handed down from ancient Greek society (including the divine world of Olympus and Hesiod’s divine genealogy in Homer’s epic and various cosmological genealogies) is compatible with the rule of royal power. When the age of kingship ended and the city-state system emerged, people found that the ancient cosmological poems or myths passed down from generation to generation did not adapt to the changed new order of the city-state. Especially in the conflict of forces within the city-state, when the cosmological interpretation of these mythical thinking When patterns represent power structures that have declined or are about to disappear, a new cosmological thinking emerges. 3. The Milesians were fortunate to have completed this ideological revolution. This is because Miletus, as a new colonial city-state in Greece, was not greatly affected by the remnants of the Mycenaean monarchy, so the need for actual changes was not as strong as Attica; however, various theogony in this region and cosmogony poetry (Babylonian, Egyptian, Homer, Hesiod) are quite active, causing more and more confusion in the thinking and the moral situation of the city-state. Therefore, there is no doubt about the origin of the universe and the city-state. The demand for rational rather than mythical explanations of the order is particularly strong. It can be imagined that the emergence of philosophy in Miletus was caused by various opportunities. No single factor could have led to the birth of this Greek miracle, but the most important thing was the new changes in the social and ethical order experienced by the Greeks within the city-state, the need for a new model of interpretation of the universe, and the Greeks' understanding of personal destiny. and intellectual thoughts inspired by worries about the fate of a city-state. Anaximander's Proverbs pays close attention to the fate of individual things as evidence. (2) The concept of original justice enshrined in Proverbs is the original concept of rational thinking. It marks the birth of "philosophical thinking mode" in Greece. When people say that "philosophy" is something that initially determined the survival of the Greeks, they are referring to the birth of rationality in the Greek city-states. The way of thinking based on rationality formed the beginning of philosophy. A basic point in the history of thought is that a major change occurred in Greek thought in the city-state era; due to this change, reason became independent from the shackles of myth and broke away from the origin of poetry, instinct, and mythical imagination. And out, trying to give rational answers to all rational questions, so that people no longer rely on myths but on reason. Philosophy therefore arises from a major break in Greek thought. This first refers to the emergence of a concept of “original justice”.

When Thales before Anaximander said "water is the origin and foundation of all things", he had already expressed a great wisdom: first of all, it expressed a certain understanding of the "origin" of things. This view does not seek a mythical explanation, but a material explanation; secondly, its expression is not a metaphor or allegory, but is based on the rationality of the world (nature and human society) Based on observation (not mystical guesswork); finally, this proposition contains the idea that "all is one". Anaximander's maxims are both a continuation of this line of thought and an expansion of its hidden principles. Judging from the meaning of the Greek word "arche", it seems to be a primary human behavior plan (starting point, beginning, primary part, reason, head), but at the same time it is the "basic principle" of the existence of all things ” (“the element, form, and purpose from which all things proceed and to which they return”). However, in Anaximander's Proverbs, the original (infinite) represents the principle of universal justice. This concept of original justice shows the emergence of a kind of philosophical thinking that is different from mythical thinking. The basis for mythological thinking is to establish a distinction and create a distance between the origin of temporality in the world and the dominance of the power structure, between the primacy of time and the primacy of power: mythology is here It even takes this distance as the object of narrative, and reproduces the change of royal power through the succession of generations of gods, until a supreme rule finally ends the dramatic construction of royal power. The use of the word "origin" breaks through the ancient mythological thinking mode, especially in the relationship between origin and justice. The order of the world cannot be achieved through the action of a specific prime mover at a specific moment. Established, since the separation of the primacy of time from the primacy of power no longer exists, and the great law that governs the world is immanent in nature, it should somehow be immanent in a first element. An important reason why Anaximander described "original justice" as "infinite" is because "infinite" can rule everything, and "infinite" excludes an individual object from usurping the "right to rule". The possibility of becoming "original". "Unlimited" regulates a new order. If an individual object wants to force the function of "undefinable", it means destroying the boundaries of all individual objects. Because individual things are determined in mutual opposition, they must always be in a relationship of mutual equality. Therefore, "unlimited" is a kind of original justice. This thinking of Anaximander means a fundamental change in the relationship between power and order: in mythical thinking, kingship and personal rule establish and maintain order, but in Anaximander's new vision, it does not Became the destroyer of order; order is no longer a hierarchy, but a balance between various forces that are equal to each other from now on. No force should exercise final domination over other forces, otherwise it will destroy the universe. This is the true intention of Anaximander’s choice of “unlimited” as the origin. From here, we can see that natural philosophy has sought to provide a new cosmological argument for the new order of the city-state since its birth. When Thales talked about "origin" and "water", he actually tried to break through the limitations of the mythical world view or mythical thinking mode. His ultimate intention was consistent with Anaximander. Anaximander's concepts of "original" and "infinite" mainly embody a principle of social existence. He tried to provide a framework of cosmological argumentation for city-state life, and only from this perspective Only then can we understand the motto he left behind. (3) Proverbs establish a relationship between individual objects and original objects, revealing the topic area of ??"beings exist", which is the original topic area of ??philosophy. We have seen that Greek philosophers including Plato and Aristotle once pointed out that "philosophy" originated from "surprise" when talking about the Greek origin of philosophy. The Greeks were amazed by something that seemed so ordinary: "all that exists" or "all is one". Nowhere is this "surprise" more evident than in the maxims of Anaximander at the beginning of philosophy. We point out that in Proverbs, the relational domain between individual things and primitive things that Anaximander tries to establish is, in its form, the relation between beings and beings. "Existences exist" means that "all existences" (individual objects) belong to "existence" (original objects). On the surface, this is a cliche that is repeated in the same language, and in the eyes of ordinary people, there is really nothing to make a fuss about. Greek thought, however, was astonished by such an unquestionable formula. It asks like this: Mountains exist, water exists, you exist, I exist, why is this? Why do all existents exist? In this way, it reveals the depth of existence in the relationship between "individual objects-original objects". It is worth noting that this unusual operation of philosophy in its Greek beginnings gave itself a "name". According to legend, it was Heraclitus, probably a contemporary of Anaximander but later, who coined the Greek word "philosophy", which he called "the lover of wisdom" (philosophos). A person who "loves wisdom" means first of all "love", which means: to speak in the way of Logos, that is, to respond to Logos. This "response" is to be in harmony with "wisdom." Coordination refers to the original combination of one thing with another due to their interdependence. This coordination is what Heraclitus calls the characteristic of "love."

According to Heraclitus' explanation, "wisdom" means "all is one"; "all" here means the whole (das Ganze), that is, the totality of beings; "one" means "the one, unified all" ". Such an explanation shows that the “love” of the so-called “love of wisdom” is “coordinated with wisdom”, which can also be said to be one with the existence of collective beings; the so-called “wisdom” of “love of wisdom” is “all Beings are in being”. The early Greek philosophy before Socrates still belonged to the philosophy of "birth". At this time, the philosophers were surprised that "all existences belong to existence" and "loved wisdom" in the sense of "harmony between man and wisdom". This was true of Anaximander, and so was Heraclitus. During this period, although the structure of the myth no longer existed, the idea in the myth of poetically attributing people to their "roots" was still retained. Nietzsche wrote about this in "Philosophy in the Age of Greek Tragedy": The early Greeks truly understood how they must begin to engage in philosophy. "That is, not in the hour of misery, as some who deduce philosophy from gloomy moods suppose, but in the hour of happiness, in mature manhood, in the elation of courageous and ever-conquering manhood. burst out. The fact that the Greeks engaged in philosophy during this period just inspires us to understand what philosophy is and what philosophy should be, and it also inspires us to understand the Greeks themselves." [4] (PP5-6) The Greeks at that time dared to do so. Throwing their lives into the vast torrent of life in the universe, their "wisdom of love" is a "magnificent river churning with proud waves". This is a kind of "wisdom of love" that bursts out from the heroism and affirmation of life. . The early Greek philosophers devoted themselves to the game of the world and the cycle of the universe with such a poet's frankness. Many of the original meanings present in philosophy at its Greek beginnings are interrupted by the ancient meaning of philia in the post-Socratic "philia paradigm," such as Plato's actual introduction of Greek thought into the world by writing the Socratic Dialogues philosophy-metaphysics dimension, while Aristotle developed “love of wisdom” as the first academic. However, the original thinking at the beginning of philosophy hidden in Anaximander's mottos always inspires people to think again and again. It quietly calls us to restart "philosophy" by paying attention to the fate of existence in the modern era. ”, no matter how historically “philosophy” was born in the West.

Only in this way can we truly get close to the Greek origins of philosophy