Subscribe to DeepL Pro to edit this document.

Visit www.DeepL.com/Pro for more information.

Moscow, CheRo, 1998.

OCR: TextShare
In square brackets [] is the page number.
The page number precedes the page.

In curly braces {} text in italics.

In parentheses () is the number of the author's sub-page notes.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. THE PRINCIPLE AND STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY.

I. Pre-philosophical, that is, socio-historical, basis .

§1. communal-clan formation.
§2. the slave-owning formation.

II. The general philosophical, i.e., theoretical-problematic, basis.

§1. the basic philosophical problems of antiquity. Myth and Logos.
§2. matter and idea .
§3. soul, mind, and cosmos.
§4. primordialism.
§5. Bottom line.

III. Historical-Problem Basis.

§1. a necessary condition for historicism.
§2. major periods.

CLASSIC. THE SENSUOUS-MATERIAL COSMOS AS AN OBJECT.

§1. introduction .
§2. early classics.
§3. middle classics.
§4. a mature classic.
§5. late classic.

EARLY AND MIDDLE HELLENISM. SENSUOUS-MATERIAL COSMOS AS

SUBJECT.

§1 Early Hellenism.
§2. middle Hellenism.
LATE HELLENISM. THE SENSUOUS-MATERIAL COSMOS AS MYTH

§1 Early Roman Neoplatonism.

§2. Syrian Neo-Platonism.
§3. Athenian Neoplatonism.
§4 Neoplatonism and the ancient mythology of destiny.

FALL AND DOOM.

§1: The Further Evolution of Neoplatonism

§2. general philosophical trends in relation to the age of syncretism.
§3. gnosticism.

THE SHORTEST SUMMARY.

[3]

INTRODUCTION

THE PRINCIPLE AND STRUCTURE OF THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

Ancient philosophy, that is, the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and ancient
The Roman Empire, originated in the sixth century B.C. in Greece and lasted until
The sixth century A.D. (when Emperor Justinian closed the last one in 529).
Greek philosophical school. Plato's Academy). Thus
Thus, ancient philosophy existed for about 1,200 years. However,
It cannot be defined by territorial and
chronological definitions. The most important question is the question of
The {essences} of ancient philosophy.
[4]
According to the doctrine that the process of historical development is
The change of socio-economic formations, and a formation is
"a society that is {at a certain stage of historical
development}, a society with a peculiarly distinctive character" (1),
And to study the vital functioning of thinking in the age of
of ancient culture, it is necessary to be aware of the fact that such
The communal-clan formation and what is the slave-owning formation.
Antique philosophy in the sixth century B.C. was born in conjunction with the
The slave-owning formation, but the communal-patrimonial formation was entirely
never disappeared in ancient times, and in the last century
of its existence turned out to be even a direct restoration of precisely
of the communal-clan worldview. The vitality of communal-patrimonial
elements throughout thousands of years of ancient slavery
makes a directly striking impression. Therefore, the pre-philosophical
The basis of ancient philosophy, which manifested itself as communal and
patrimonial
the slave-owning formation, must be taken into account in the first place.
 ----------------------------------------
(1) Marx K., Engels F. Opus, Vol. 6, p. 442.

[5]

I. PRE-PHILOSOPHICAL, THAT IS, SOCIO-HISTORICAL, BASIS

§1. COMMUNAL-CLAN FORMATION

1. {Basic method of communal-patrimonial thinking}. The communal-patrimonial

mindset
Formation arises on the basis of kinship relationships, which lie in the
The basis of both all production and the distribution of labor among the members
and
of the community, and of the distribution of the products of labor. If by the
nature of the
of production is understood as a production category, then here before
we are quite a pre-class society. This is that primitive
collectivism, where everything is not only economic but also political,
and the military life of society is determined only by the community itself, in
which is headed first by a woman as the closest principle
kinship relations (matriarchy), and later, man,
when it was necessary to separate, to a certain extent, the organizational
functions
from a purely kinship relationship (patriarchy); but everywhere and always in
The communal-patrimonial formations were the most comprehensible
pndqrbemm{e relationship. And when the question of nature or the world arose
in general, then in this, purely objective area also did not find
nothing other than a relationship of kinship, that is, other than a relationship of
parents and children, brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren,
ancestors and
descendants. Resolutely everything in the world: the sun, the moon, and the stars,
down to inorganic and inanimate nature, all of which
[6]
was understood as a universal clan community. And since such a universal
The animation of the vital and ancestral elements is a sign of
mythological consciousness, then it must be considered that the basic
the method of communal-clan thinking is {mythology}.
2. {Stages of development of communal-patrimonial thinking}. Thinking
It is impossible without establishing the difference between objects and their
similarities, their
of multiplicity and unity, their causes and effects, that is, without
The establishment of this or that abstract structure of reality.
At the beginning, this structure is still thought of in its complete identity with
by reality itself, so that the soul necessary for thinking
and spirit are still quite identical with matter itself. It is
{fetishism}, in which the principle of vital relations
things with the surrounding community, or, as they began to say later, her
demon, her soul or spirit and, still later, her essence and idea,
remained inseparable from the physical body of the thing itself.
Consequently, it is not yet an abstraction, but a precursor to an abstraction.
However, once on the path of thinking, one soon begins to
and more independently evaluate the underlying
reality elements of the thought structure. The spirit gradually
The first stage in the primitive's conception of matter is the beginning to
separate
human beings arise creatures that are to some extent free from
material things from which they used to be inseparable and
which they animated by being
[7]
in themselves. In other words, the age of {animism} was dawning.
At first the demon of this tree was not separable from it. Then in
In the order of increasing mythological abstraction, this demon has not
I am the demon of the tree, but the demon of trees in general. И
as it was not only about individual subjects or areas
reality, but also reality as a whole, then
Demons of increasing importance appeared: demons of the earth, of rivers,
fields, forests, mountains, water and air, certain areas of the earth and sky
and, finally, the whole earth and the whole sky. This is {developed animism}.
Finally, in connection with the evolution of the communal-clan formation in the
A stratum of more organized people began to emerge in the community,
more independent and more free from direct
productive labor. A peculiar communal- patrimonial
The aristocracy, which had already received for itself a certain kind of
opportunity to
and time also for the development of individuals who, until
The community has been completely subordinated to the community and therefore not
even understood
As autonomous individuals. But as the independent personality grows
independent thinking grew as well. And as soon as that thinking
The first time it came to the development of abstract and generalized notions, then
The end of the absolute domination of mythology was also coming.
However, this emergence in the depths of the communal-clan formation
The personality was still too weak to be outside of any
dependence on other people and on the community itself. Such thinkers
The individual, as they moved away from the immediate-
[8]
The first of the three pillars of the "new" and "old" worlds was the
of people who were working, but who were not yet thinking for themselves. And that
and
were slaves.
3. {The Emergence of Slavery}. Slavery arose as a natural
opndsjr of the development of the communal-clan formation, which could no longer
to ensure their existence only by means of individualized
of undivided and spontaneous-collectivist production. But
the liberated individual was too weak and powerless to do so,
to provide for themselves and their community. And the first way out
out of this contradiction was the emergence of slavery. The clan community
The old slave-owning polis, in which the old, communal
The tribal authorities were relegated to second place, and in their place
The slave-owners' union, which had now become, as a whole, the
The organizers of the new socio-economic formation.
In the beginning, slavery was a progressive force. Then it became
a moderate and harmonious ratio of the whole social,
political and cultural life. In the future, however, it has become
The growing productive forces are lagging behind and, in the end
has turned into that reactionary order of life from which perished
and itself, and the entire antique culture.
 §2. THE SLAVE-OWNING FORMATION

1. {Principle}. The communal-clan formation in connection with its growing

Mythological abstraction has reached the point of representing such living
beings that
[9]
were no longer just physical things and were no longer just matter,
but have become something almost extraterrestrial. Nevertheless, nevertheless
It was too early to speak of complete immateriality here. A sign of
of the materiality still remained even on these intangible
gods and demons, namely, in the form of an extremely thin and rarefied
matter. It was, we repeat, too early to speak of a pure spirit.
But when abstract thinking emerged, it became, on the one hand
On the one hand, to construct purely thinking categories, and on the other hand, to
On the other hand, the material and material basis of these categories
remained unshaken throughout antiquity.
Slavery brought with it the strict need to distinguish
mental and physical labor. Some began to work, but not
to engage in mental creativity, and others have become mentally
create, but were no longer engaged in physical labor, and such
The bifurcation immediately triggered the thought necessity to distinguish between
a soulless thing and the person controlling that thing. The slave in
The ancient world is interpreted not so much as a person, but as a thing,
acting not of her own free will, but of the will of an outsider, i.e., it
not a whole person, not a personality, but only her sensual
a material point. It is in vain to think that the slave-owner
is a full-fledged human being. Nothing of the sort. Neither is a slaveholder.
was a whole person, but only that side of him that makes
It is possible for him to be a slave chaser, so that he may expediently
directed the activities of the slave. This means that the slave-owner, if
It is not a question of taking it as an act of...
[10]
The slave-owning formations are not human, they are not full-fledged.
personality, but only a person's intellect, and quite enough
abstract.
However, the slave owner and the slave cannot exist alone without
the other. They represent something of a whole. At first it is a small
the ancient Greek polis, and later the vast Roman Empire.
Consequently, a living but meaningless thing, which, according to
of the ancients, is a slave," was to be combined into something whole with
organizing its abstract intellect.
Thus, the principle of slavery is the vital synthesis of the slave
as a thing capable of producing useful work, but without
personal intention and initiative, and the slaveholder as
The formative idea in the form of an abstract initiative, that is, without
bodily participation in the fulfillment of this initiative.
2. {Logical (that is, structural and semantic) development
principle}. On the basis of this slave principle grows and
his logic.
(a) A slave is not a man, but a thing capable of producing
expedient work. And since slave labor is here
{matter} already the entire life process, then in the field of logic we also
We encounter, first of all, matter that is devoid of
of his own initiative and is therefore only a {potential}
of a purposefully shaped life. And we will see below that the concept of
matter
----------------------------------------
 (1) See Marx K. and Engels F. Opus, Vol. 23, p. 208. Footnote 17.
[11]
as potency is a ubiquitous category in antiquity,
which brings together even philosophers of differing views, such as
Plato and Aristotle.
b) The slaveholder is also not a person, but an extra-personal
{forming idea}. Hence, all antique logic also proceeds from
from an understanding of the idea in which it, too, is not a person,
but only an extra-personal formative principle.
c) However, the slave and the slave-owner do not exist without the other,
but form a whole, namely the slave-owning polis,
or state. For logic, this means that there is also a
the integral unity of idea and matter; and since the slave and the slave-owner
are opposites, their integral unity can be
only {dialectical} and, of course, also extra-personal. Since.
logic thinks through its categories to the end and to their limits, then
there is also a limiting state of said unity. And since
The limit combines all its possible approximations and is
the common and explanatory principle for them, then in antiquity
The notion of a {sensual-
material cosmos}, which is not only a whole
The dialectical union of all things and all ideas, but also their
an ideal principle. It is, of course, extrapersonal. The ancient cosmos is
is also spatio-temporal, i.e., quite a observable thing,
only a very large, extremely large thing; and at the same time
time it is the ultimate formality in the form of
[12]
the eternal, but quite foreseeable expedient motion of the celestial
shining.
d) This does not mean that those entering the sensuous-material
The elements of the cosmos are deprived of all freedom and come into contact with
each other
only in a mechanical connection. On the contrary, its constituent elements
act now as instruments of the whole. And this means that they are now
are {heroic}. Gods, demons, and heroes are not the essence of persons in
in the full sense of the word, because they are in antiquity
only a generalization of natural properties or phenomena. But, reflecting on the
the whole, and therefore by doing its will, they are the heroes, so
that the sensuous-material cosmos is the bulwark of the universal
{heroism}.
However, on the other hand, the sensuous-material cosmos does not
has nothing else that is above himself, and therefore he
is based on itself. He is the ultimate absolute. It is in this
The extra-personal absolute is the creation of all things expedient as well as of
all things expedient.
inexpedient. And then there is no higher reason,
jnrnp` would explain this extra-personal nature of the sensual
material cosmos; there is no higher and more personal
mind, which (as it turned out later, in the Middle Ages)
would consciously create the entire life of the sensuous-material cosmos
and guided the course of its development, and therefore there is no
The appropriate consciously acting will by which
a higher mind would create all this sensual-material life
of the cosmos. The ancient sensual-material cosmos is already in itself
full of life, soul and
[13]
thoughts, but there is nothing personal, no driving and deliberate
of the acting subject.
But that principle, which is extra-personal, that is, unconsciously and
spontaneously, equally creates everything expedient and inexpedient,
is nothing other than {destiny}. Therefore, the logic of the slaveholding
The formation necessarily ended not only with the doctrine of
heroism, but also the doctrine of {fatalism}.
e) So, the logical development of the slave principle
comes to the point where the {substantial-material cosmos
as an absolute}, that is, as an impersonal unity of idea and matter, and
this means the unity of heroism and fatalism. To this we can
The only thing to add is that the sensuous-material cosmos, being
The absolute, needed nothing, that is, needed only the
himself. And since the things of which he was the generalization were in
The sensuous-material cosmos, too, is in a constant state of becoming.
eternally becoming, that is, eternally becoming himself, eternally
came to himself. This meant that he was in a perpetual state of
The circle in which the sensuous-material cosmos is eternally
repeating himself. Therefore, the ancient sensual-material
The cosmos is {extra-historical}. It is astronomical, but not historical. Eternal
The circle-return, or eternal return to oneself, is
its history. In other words, the ancient sensual-material
The cosmos, being the wholeness and unity of all things, - but every thing,
taken in itself, corporeal, but not historical, - necessarily
[14]
demanded the idea of {eternal return}. This cosmos was eternally transitioning
from chaos to universal design and from the latter to chaos.
Such a perpetual whirling of chaos and cosmos was not in antiquity
not only understandable and compelling, but also soothing and
comforting. The cosmos was an absolute, that is, in its principle
never came into being, and no one ever created it, and never could
perish, but within this universal cosmos as it
There is also, of necessity, its own formation,
The following are some of the most important features of the
the disintegration of the individual elements of formation. Against the backdrop of
the universal
of the cosmos, this eternal return was not only natural, but also
quite comforting.

II. THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHICAL, I.E. THEORETICAL-PROBLEMATIC, BASIS

§1. THE BASIC PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS OF ANTIQUITY. MYTH AND LOGOS.

If the main method and ideology of the communal-patrimonial

The slave-owning formation that emerged from the
on the basis of the division of mental and physical labor, in
ideological field could no longer be satisfied with myths and
was to replace them with rational constructions. All of these
categories
[15]
in a latent form, of course, were also in mythology itself, but
They functioned there in a fused and undivided form.
Slave consciousness, being already a thinking rather than a
mythological fantasy, was to dissect all these categories
and therefore be in conflict with mythology. This conflict, however,
could not be conclusive because the kinship
continued to play a tremendous role even during the period of non-native
relationships. There was nowhere to turn from family and clan, though
The slave-owning polis no longer had the former kinship
authority, and was authority only to the extent of necessity
of the joint life of slave-owners and slaves. As a matter of fact,
slave mentality was not so much a critique of mythology,
as much as {criticism of her anthropomorphism}. If it was the turn of the line to
be
the development of thought categories, then for pure thinking
The authority was no longer, of course, mythology, but only his own
the same, purely thought sequence. Therefore, the transition from
The transition from the communal-clan formation to the slave-owning formation was
marked, in
First, by criticizing anthropomorphism, and second, by striving instead to
mythology to create a thinking system of abstract categories.
But the absolute negation of mythology, we repeat, could not be here
be, for slavery itself, as we have now established,
was based on physical and bodily intuitions. And this kind of
intuition was certainly at the forefront during the period of mythology as well. We
must
was only to bring these corporeal intuitions to the forefront
plan and
[16]
to reject all the communal-patrimonial imagery that was based on them.
And this meant criticizing anthropomorphism by staying on the ground
The material-corporeal worldview, and instead build a system of
abstract categories. In modern science this is often referred to as
as a transition {from myth to logos}.

§2. MATTER AND IDEA

1. {Dialectic of Matter and Idea}. It is clear from the preceding that in

the system of abstract categories, the opposition of matter and idea
had to play a primary role. But matter had to
to be recognized only as potency, and the idea only as
the form-forming principle of expedient structure. In addition,
it is clear that matter and idea must also have been thought so
opposite, that their unity could only be interpreted as
dialectically. Therefore, the {dialectic of matter and idea} is forever
remained the main problem of all ancient philosophy. Matter
The idea of the "I am the only one" was recognized not only by the materialists,
such as Democritus, but also by all of them.
Idealists, especially Plato, who never thought of
rejecting matter, but only acknowledging its inadequacy to
The whole picture of the world in view of its pure, i.e., non-meaningful,
fluidity. And Democritus called his atoms ideas (and even gods), and
Plato called his ideas atoms. The only difference was
the placement of the logical accent within the same
abstract category, but these abstract categories themselves are always
remained unshakeable in antiquity.
[17]
2. {Specificity of Antique Concepts of Matter}. Dialectics
idea and matter was firmly in all cultures, pre-Antique and
post-antique. The history of ancient philosophy must therefore put forward
Here it is its specificity that comes to the forefront.
(a) As to matter, in view of the fact that slave labor
without the participation of the slaveholder did not create a final and
The slave was not a human being, but a
only a thing), then neither was matter in the ancient sense a ready-made
production, but treated only as the {potentiality} of any phenomena
validity. Neither was the slaveholder a man in his own
The first of them was the principle of the "I.
bodily reality. Therefore, neither was the ancient idea
just an idea in general, but, first, always a corporeal idea,
i.e., the pictorially represented plan of the corporeal
of production, which is why the terms "idea" were brought in for this purpose.
or "eidos," by its very etymology (eidos is the ancient Greek.
"view") indicating physical vision. And in the philosophical realm.
these terms indicated the kind of mental construction that
has always been a conceivable picture of reality, what is in it
"was seen." Secondly, the ancient idea, being a formative
principle, has never been treated immovably or abstractly even
and in Platonism, where it has always been drawn as a dynamical
the creative principle of constructing a cosmos.
[18]
b) However, not only idea and matter, but also the link between them
dialectic also had its own specificity in antiquity. Since the slave was
not a man but a thing, and the slave-owner was not a man either, but
only the organizer of a thing, then the dialectic of idea and matter also
had in antiquity a {real-bodily character}. It is
means that, for all its external activity, internally such a
dialectics was passive, spiritually passive, contemplative. It
always made a lot of fuss about the actual state of affairs, but
was incapable of fundamentally reshaping reality.
This {passive- contemplative} character of ancient dialectics
stayed in it forever.
3. {Specificity of Antique Concepts of the Idea}. The whole of this
the antique material-body character of the dialectic of idea and matter
has left an indelible mark not only on matter, but also on the idea,
And formulating the essence of the ancient idea is much more difficult than
the essence of ancient matter. Since the original intuition stated that
such a thing that is capable of producing expedient work, but
unable to act on her own initiative, then, as it
was said above, matter under such conditions could only be thought of as
as potency. It is true that this potency in different periods of antiquity
had a wide variety of content, ranging from purely
Theoretical assignment or charge, and ending with a full-fledged
with a vital content. But what is the antique specificity of the idea,
involved in the creation of an expedient product?
[19]
(a) Such an idea, first, has a purely {thinking}
character, since it is not labor, but only expedient
direction of labor. So it should not come as a surprise that in
all the spontaneous materialism of antiquity, the immaterial idea
was developed in antiquity with such detail, with such
with such a love of argument and disagreement.
b) Second, such an idea, being a corporeal idea,
has always possessed in antiquity a pronounced {visual}
nature. It was both mental and visual at the same time, so
that intellectual intuition, so little understood by many
to the philosophers of the New Age, in antiquity was implied by itself
and did not require any proof for itself.
c) Third, since the expedient orientation of a thing is all-
The idea of the thing was not dependent on the thing itself, but on its idea, then
that idea, being
both purely mental and purely visual, at the same time
nak`d`k`s unusually active character. The immersion of thought in her
his own reasoned and verbose element was on the
The fact that it is an active force, dynamically manifesting itself
programmatic, almost sharpened systematics. Internal
Passive contemplation was wonderfully combined here
with an outward and very businesslike orientation. Plato seeks the truth.
But how? Only through endless conversations and arguments, through
of an exquisite and verbose dialogue, at the end of which the disputants
Sometimes even outright refusal
[20]
to finally resolve the issue under discussion in view of the difficulty of finding
truth. Aristotle, too, is looking for truth everywhere. But how? Only by
infinite decomposition of concepts and by elucidating the subtle
terminology, which at times leads to the very real
a vocabulary of very fractional and refined terminology. In the ancient
of philosophy has been centuries of skepticism, in the most sophisticated way
proving that nothing exists, and if anything
exists, it is incognizable; and if it is cognizable, it is
inexpressible. From the last four centuries of Neoplatonist philosophy
The most militant and microscopic
developed logic, but often has very little to do with
the practical creation of life.
d) Fourth, since slaves and slave owners did not exist
some without the others, but were parts of an organic whole, then
The formative principle of the material dispensation was to
to get to the last details and move into this kind of
The formation in which he, without ceasing to be a principle, manifested
itself as a continuous and uninterrupted formation, which at once was and
the immaterial, and the material-fluid principle of this becoming.
Therefore, the ancient dialectic was never in its
of reasoned isolation, nor in its only fluid
substance. Antique dialectics has always been {fluid-
the essence} of the formation of an idea. All the fluid stages it passes through
always had their meaning, their idea, but already in a continuum
form.
[21]
e) And finally, fifthly, being an expedient creation
life, the ancient dialectic, for all its spiritual passivity
has always been, in a vital sense, a very intense dynamic,
has always emotionally promoted active-creative creation
material values of life.
Thus, a specific feature of ancient dialectics
for all its (1) passive- contemplative spirituality has always been (2)
visual, (3) reasoning-creepy, and (4) fluid-substantial (5)
the dynamics of the creation of the material values of life.

§3. SOUL, MIND, AND COSMOS

1. {Soul and Mind}. a) The ancient philosophers astonishingly often

speak of the soul and the mind. As matter and idea have been interpreted
passive, and reality was in constant motion, then
for her only one matter and only one idea was not enough. And so
as, apart from reality, there can be nothing, then it is clear that
reality must move itself. But what moves itself
of themselves, the ancient philosophers called life, or the soul; and that which
This movement was expedient and made it necessary to recognize that
and the deliberate projection of this movement, which
ancient thinkers called mind. And for the antique specificity of these
dbsu categories, too, it is important to consider two circumstances.
b) First, both soul and mind were not primarily interpreted
as subjective-human, but as {objective-cosmic}.
After all, since there was
[22]
The question of reality itself, then, in antiquity there was no
The first of these is the fact that it is not a question of the
human. The subjective-human soul and mind have been interpreted
only as a reflection of their objective counterparts, and moreover
reflection is very weak. Secondly, since the initial
intuition spoke not of personality, but of corporeal corporeality,
as the soul and the mind were also interpreted in antiquity
extrapersonal. The soul was a principle of self-movement and movement, but it
does not mean that she was a person. And the cosmic mind was
The idea of space is expediently guided, but not at all so
personality that would act consciously and intentionally, i.e.
by his own will and by his own arbitrary desire and need.
Such a soul and such a mind, not of its own free will, but already by
of their eternal nature act in this way and not otherwise.
2. {Feeling-material cosmos}. Before us arises one
one of the most primary categories of ancient thought, the "cosmos. Here
Nor should we forget the original, corporeal intuition
in antiquity. Since the thing and the body are a principle, all that is based on
on this principle, must also be a thing and a body. And based on
of this thing and on this body no more and no less than the cosmos itself,
which, in the limit, is nothing but a maximally generalized
thing as the sum of all possible things. But if so, then the whole
The cosmos is nothing but a {sensible-material} cosmos, then
there is a space visible and audible, with earth
[23]
in the middle, with a vault of heaven and a starry sky on top, necessarily
visible and audible, and the underworld below. In this, too.
The amazing specificity of ancient cosmology, which is infinitely
different both from the spiritual understanding of heaven in the Middle Ages and
from the
infinitely spatial understanding of it in the New Age.
The sensuous-material cosmos is, for antiquity, the most
the real absolute, since there is nothing else but the cosmos.
exists, and nothing else governs this cosmos but the
by himself. No one ever created it, because otherwise
would have had to recognize some kind of being even before the cosmos, and moreover
being is an active, creative being. But since, in addition to the sensual
material cosmos, there is nothing at all, it depends only on
of himself, has its cause only in himself and his
movement is determined only by itself. Sensual-material
The cosmos for antiquity is its final absolute. The soul and the mind, o
of which we spoke above are the soul of this very thing, i.e.
The sensual-material cosmos and the mind of that same cosmos.
But if so, another problem arises for philosophy here.
 §4. THE FIRST UNITY

The thing, as is clear in itself, is not only something stationary,

but also something becoming. But since becoming is always that
or some degree of becoming, as well as any combination of these
degrees, then it means that things act not only
expediently, but also chaotically. Therefore, and
[24]
the soul, and the mind, though understanding them objectively-cosmically, arrange
jnqlnq appropriate, but also allow any
inexpediency, including any chaotic stratification. Then
it is clear that expediency alone is not enough for the cosmic soul and for
of the cosmic mind.
1. {the unity of the reasonable and the unreasonable}. In other words,
It is also necessary to recognize that there is also a beginning that
would combine everything expedient and everything inexpedient.
This does not mean going beyond the cosmic soul and
of the cosmic mind. But this means that in the cosmos itself it is necessary to
was to recognize a special beginning that would unite both the
all expedient things of the soul and mind, and all
inexpedient, which is not created by the soul and mind, and yet
necessarily exists in the same cosmos. Hence there arises
the striking tendency of ancient thought to recognize also that
The beginning, which is higher than thinking itself and which accommodates
also all the non-thinking. This beginning in antiquity was called
"one" or "one". It was interpreted above the soul and mind, and at the end of
of antiquity, even above the cosmos itself. But it is only and
existed in space itself.
2. {Fate}, (a) This unity is interesting for the history of philosophy still
and in the sense that it was nothing more than a {philosophical
the concept of fate}. We have already seen above that if one recognizes only
one ve-
[25]
The first of these is the fact that, however we interpret it in its last
limit, it necessarily requires for itself its own explanation.
Since, however, apart from the corporeal slave, apart from the
The physical-body slave owner and, in addition to the physical-body slave
of their association, nothing else exists, then this whole element
of matter remains unexplained in the end. At
stage of the cosmos this substance has reached both the soul and the mind. But
soul and mind, taken in their purest form, are the principles of the material
expediency. And how to explain all impracticability, also
that reigns in real material reality? And that is
remains unexplained. And since, we repeat, apart from the material
bodily area, nothing is recognized, then it means that
consistent slave mentality in a necessary way
comes here to the concept of destiny. The cosmos has a soul and a mind. But it
neither
for which he is not responsible, for as such he has existed forever.
To acknowledge something is responsible for all evil is not to
to acknowledge only the soul and the mind. This would be to acknowledge
personality as well. But the ancient cosmos knows no personality;
his unity, which we are now talking about, is also not a person, but a
rather some kind of element. Consequently, in antiquity one had to
to refuse the ultimate explanation of evil, that is, to recognize for
his explanations of fate.
b) So, the sensuous-material cosmos, if it is interpreted
as an absolute, requires the recognition for oneself of such a
The first unity, which is the
[26]
principle and all that is expedient in it, and all that is expedient in it
inexpedient. Destiny is the extra-personal principle of explanation
of all the expedient and all the inexpedient that arise in the
sensory-material cosmos in the context of its recognition in the
as the last absolute. This coincidence of everything
The purposeful and inappropriate, the whole mental and
The ancient and ancient writers of the Bible were not only the most important
philosophers called the {one}, all-exceeding {first-unity} and
The first one is a total all-encompassing and everywhere present {primordiality}.

§5. TOTAL.

1. {General Formula of the Total}. The basic antique problematics have

The material-sensible cosmos as an absolute, then
there is as expediently governed by the soul and mind, and if you include and
everything cosmically impractical, then controlled and first-directed, then
is destiny. In all this ancient philosophical problematics
The original slave-owning material-body intuition manifests
in all the big things, and in all the little things. It is very important to note,
that ancient philosophers were not very fond of reasoning about fate,
because the popular notion of destiny fixes it as a
something too external and superhuman. The ancient philosophers
wanted all inexpedient and all inhuman
functioned on the same plane with all that was expedient and with all
The human, why and fate was not interpreted as a subject
of the unaccountable human
[27]
faith, but also as a purely human concept, as a purely
cosmic force. And then such an extra-personal and extra-human
The force became necessary to be interpreted on the same plane as the entire
human and cosmic expediency, with all human
and cosmic orderliness. And this meant treating such a
principle, to treat fate as a philosophical category, i.e.
interpret it as the ultimate first-order, or as a sensible and
unreasonable principle at the same time.
Thus, taken in its most general form, the ancient
The problematics was reduced to the {dialectic of idea and matter,
developed in the form of a sentient-material cosmos, driven by
The cosmic soul, guided also by the cosmic mind and
created by a super-soul and super-intelligent first-dominion}.
This is the purely philosophical, i.e., theoretical, basis
of ancient philosophy.
2. {Historical significance of the specificity of this outcome}. Specificity
The outcome we formulated is very important in the sense that
It is the only way to contrast antiquity with
subsequent crops. In all of these crops there is a great deal of
antiquity, and in many respects antiquity turned out to be somehow
the eternal model. Nevertheless, if ancient philosophy is
We are something definite, something autonomous, something
The fact that it is not reducible to any other culture, it is necessary in any
In the case of a clear formulation of the an-
[28]
The first of these is the "theology of the human being" (cf,
to non-antique ways of thinking.
Indeed, for example, medieval philosophy also recognizes
and the existence of the sensuous-material cosmos and also gives its
neo-Platonic treatment. And yet there is one point,
which once and for all contrasts the ancient and medieval
philosophy, whatever coincidences may be observed here. Exactly,
the final and final absolute for ancient philosophy
is the sensuous-material cosmos, since the original
the intuition of all slavery said only about bodily things and,
at most, the elevation of all sense-material things to the
the ultimate stage of the sensuous-material cosmos, too. Quite
Another thing is medieval thinking, in which the main intuition
was not the intuition of the sensual body, but the intuition of the personality.
Therefore,
The absolute here was not the sensuous-material cosmos, but the
personality, which is above the cosmos and which is even its
rbnpvnl and the creator. And whatever coincidences we find between
medieval monotheism and ancient pantheism, both of which
never and in no sense can be identified, hence
the impenetrable chasm between ancient and medieval thinking.
In the same way, a great deal of the New Age coincided with
antiquity, and New European thinkers have always learned a great deal from
of antiquity, and often studied quite eagerly, even enthusiastically. И
again: the whole of New European philosophy, too
[29]
comes from personality, but only not absolute, but relative,
humanity. This was not the absolute personality of the Middle Ages, but
The absolutized human personality, for which the sensual
The material cosmos already had less of an independent
The importance, for the most part, of the subject matter of scientific
artistic constructions.
Finally, and in the age of incipient socialism, the basic intuition
is not the intuition of the sensual-material thing at all, but
intuition of the free-acting and creative-labor collective.
Thus, the specificity of ancient philosophy that we have formulated has nothing to
do with it.
It should not be forgotten by the mere fact that without it it would be impossible
to
establish the specificity of all post-antique cultures as well. If
The ancient culture had no specificity of its own, then to establish this
specific to later cultures would have been very
is difficult and even hardly possible.
Finally, the specificity of ancient philosophy that we propose is not at all
is not something humiliating for her. After all, K. Marx rightly
suggests that the Greeks were normal children and that the adult
a person will always remember his childhood fondly, if it
was normal. Therefore, if for a child the world first
is limited to one room, or one house, or one street,
it is not surprising and unnatural that for
The ancient Greek world was limited to the visible, the audible, and the generally
sensually
[30]
the perceived sky. And there was nothing unnatural about it,
that the cosmos in general was interpreted in antiquity as spatially
limited physical body. This was quite natural, and
The specificity of ancient philosophy that we have established was not a phenomenon
of
only natural, but in its own way even deep and beautiful.

III. HISTORICAL AND PROBLEMATIC FRAMEWORK

§1. A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR HISTORICISM

Because all history consists of different periods of development,

There has always been a temptation to overly isolate one historical period
from the other, overly opposing one to the other, to the point of
The exact fixation of chronological boundaries with an overly separate
The beginning and the end of such a development, without any consideration of the
the continuity of the transition from one period to the next. The fact that each
historical period is something independent, and the fact that its
It is necessary to contrast the previous and
The following is a very clear statement of the developmental period, and it is
quite
It is necessary, because without it it would be impossible to establish any
of a single historical period, and hence to establish the
of development, of history itself.
Nevertheless, history is by no means only the logic of individual
concepts. All individual logical
[31]
The concepts are emerging in history gradually and sometimes even barely.
conspicuously. Each logical category is represented in the story
countless subtle shades, and for each
A completely separate and discontinuous jump requires dozens, if not
hundreds, years of continuous and, at first glance, barely noticeable, barely
separate development.
Besides, if we have established anything as exactly antique
philosophy, and it has existed for more than a millennium, then
It is clear that no matter how different the individual periods of its development
may have been from one
from the other, they at the same time, albeit imperceptibly, contain in
to myself every time all this ancient philosophy in its entirety. In other words
In other words, every period of historical development necessarily contains
The whole of ancient philosophy is in itself, and we can only speak of
the predominance of any particular aspect of it in a given period
of its history, and these prevailing moments are in fact always
exist in the form of a barely perceptible and quite continuous development.
Therefore, any establishment of separate periods of philosophical
development is relative and approximate, so that
the historian of philosophy in even the smallest historical
The moment cannot forget the whole, which is the antique
philosophy in its most general form.
The basic periodization of ancient philosophy, as seen in
The first thing to do, of course, on the basis of all of the preceding, is to
The latter, in its turn, was a cultural development of antiquity, but the latter,
in its turn, was a
[32]
The first of these is associated with the ancient socio-historical formation, then
there is with slavery.
Hence the corresponding specific periodization
the history of ancient philosophy.
 §2. MAJOR PERIODS

1. {Mythology}. As we have seen above, mythology precedes

The socio-historical necessity of ancient philosophy, and its socio-historical
necessity in the
us has already been substantiated. Now, on the threshold of philosophy itself, we
have to say that mythology also has a certain
worldview, and in this sense it also contains something
philosophical. But all these philosophical elements at the stage of mythology
are given in a fused and undivided form. Such a philosophy needs to be
call {doreflective} philosophy. What, after the absolute
The dominance of mythology will no longer declare itself as mythology, but as
philosophy, by necessity, would be only to
The worldview of the world, which, in the very
The mythology is given in an undivided and quite fused way.
2. {Classics}. To understand what these basic philosophical
moments of the mythological worldview, it is necessary to take into account that
Slavery began precisely as a separation of mental and
physical labor. In the first place, this means that the mythology of
It was no longer seen as an absolute fusion, but primarily as
as the object of thinking. Mental labor, that is, thinking,
requires for itself its own object, co.
[33]
that would be investigated. If there is no object to think about,
then, obviously, there is no thinking itself, since all thinking
is thinking about something.
This led to the fact that the first period of ancient philosophy
is the kind of philosophy that considers the whole
wsbqrbemmn the material cosmos predominantly also in the form of
object. In the period of the absolute dominance of mythology, the sensuous
The material cosmos was not only an object, it was also the main
the subject, he was also the fusion of the object with all the subjects. But
The first period of ancient philosophy is distinguished by the fact that just the
entire
The sensory-material reality is interpreted according to
as an object. Everything else in the sensuous-material
of the cosmos, such as animation, remains intact here, but all
turned only into an object of study.
The early period of ancient philosophy was what usually
is called its {classics}. This is the period of the sixth to the fourth century
B.C.
3. {Early Hellenism}. As we already know very well, myth is
the picture of living and animate beings, and living and animate
beings are not only objects but also subjects. Subject
is the arena of thinking, feeling, will, affects, and, generally speaking,
consciousness and experience. The subject is no longer simply an object, but
such an object that has reached the point of relating itself to itself
oneself. Objects are what one is conscious of. But the subject is
that which is conscious of itself. To this
[34]
of self-consciousness, objective reality, if it exists
itself, in the classics does not yet reach or reaches partially, does not
principle.
 In a principled sense, the subject appeared in ancient philosophy
only when a certain socio-historical
setting. Subjective self-consciousness was there before, but before it
was confined to the early slaveholding polis, beyond
of which the thinking of the time was almost non-existent. But a separate
The tiny slaveholding polis soon ceased to live up to its
existence and began to disintegrate due to the search for life's
resources already outside the borders of the individual polis. In the fourth
century it became clear
The need to unite all the polities into a single state had already
world dimensions, whence came the inevitability of such
colossal phenomena such as the conquests of Alexander the Great. At
This made it clear that the old and naive polity mechanism was no longer
was suitable for the organization and maintenance of conquered countries.
Hence the Hellenistic military-monarchical
organization. This is where the subject of the new and
unprecedented type, which, on the one hand, was necessary for the
The organization of international associations, on the other hand,
Once granted autonomy, he could thereby deepen himself
in himself and even be in antagonism with the military and
monarchist organizations.
This kind of situation has happened more than once in human history.
Thus, in new and modern Europe, science and technology were widely developed
and thereby
[35]
The circulation of money was booming. And all this required
an enormous development of man's subjective efforts. But such a person
felt his independence as well, thereby withdrawing into his
their own depths. And so the more the technique grew and
The more the subjective
human self-sense. Socio-historical reality
required an extraordinary development of the individual human personality,
But this person, who himself created the technique or the money
treatment, and hated both of them, undoubtedly
finding themselves in a painful dialectical contradiction.
These were the three main schools of early Hellenism in antiquity
Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism. The sensuous-material cosmos,
Of course, he remained in the foreground here as well, but here he was not drawn
rnk|jn in its objective given, all
subjective human experiences, so that he was already
not only an object, but also a colossal world subject.
We call this era conventionally {Early Hellenism}, referring to the
4th to 1st century B.C.
4. {Late Hellenism}. The rest of the ages of ancient philosophy, then
I - VI A.D., we conventionally call Late Hellenism, conventionally
because this includes the whole of Roman philosophy, so
developed under the influence of Greek philosophy, which is also conveniently
would refer to Late Hellenism. The Essence of Late Hellenism
had its own and very realistic representation of the
[36]
The philosophy of this period received its final form
only in the last four centuries of ancient philosophy, namely, in the
The school of so-called Neo-Platonism, which existed during the
III - VI centuries A.D. The most curious principle of this Neo-Platonism
boils down to the following.
During the period of early Hellenistic subjectivism, the notion of
The subject was not yet powerful enough to encompass
the whole of objective reality. In the period of the early
Hellenism, this objective cosmic reality only
reflected the features of subjective human thinking.
The object has been interpreted in the light of the subject, but it has not yet
become its own
the same as his own subject. There was still a mighty rung
philosophy, where (already in earnest) the subject and the object, though
distinguished
Theoretically, but practically, they were one and the same.
inseparable whole. But what does this fundamental indistinction mean?
subject and object, this fundamental and inseparable fusion?
This means nothing less than the transformation of subject and object into
a living animate being, which at once and forever is and
object and subject at the same time.
And since imagining the cosmos as a living and animate
being is mythology, late Hellenism turned out to be nothing more than a
other than mythology. Clearly, it was no longer the former and
ancient mythology, in which there was not yet even the very reflection
in relation to the subject and object, i.e., pre-reflexive mythology.
Late Ellie-
[37]
nism is precisely what has become a {reflexive} mythology in which all
The unarticulated moments are already logically dissected and
contrasted. And since the sensuous-material cosmos in
The first of these is the fact that the first of them was the first of the
following.
Neoplatonism interpreted dissociation as absolute unity. А
hence the character of Neoplatonic philosophy emerged of its own accord,
which cannot otherwise be called {dialectics of myth}. All of
Neoplatonism is replete with analyses of mythology. But at the same time
the whole of Neoplatonism is literally overflowing with dialectical theories as
well,
which have been brought here to the strictest and most unwavering
dialectical system. Instead of gods, demons, heroes, and men there were
the most precise logical categories are formulated, and all of these categories
have been brought into one rigorous system.
5. {The demise of ancient philosophy} Antique philosophy, as we
see, it began with a myth and ended with a myth. And when it was exhausted.
myth, ancient philosophy itself was exhausted. However,
It did not die at once. At the very end of antiquity came
a whole series of theories of decline that were no longer consistent with
The ancient spirit and became in one way or another dependent on the
Christian ideology, at that time progressive and ascendant.
These decadent (from an ancient point of view) theories also deserve
consideration, if we are to give a history of ancient philosophy in
or in a less substantial and integral way.

[38]

CLASSIC

THE SENSUOUS-MATERIAL COSMOS AS AN OBJECT

§1. INTRODUCTION
 1. {Elements}. Since the whole cosmos is sensuous and
material, and so are its elements - earth, water, and air,
fire, ether.
2. {Hylozoism}. Since nothing exists except
The sensory-material cosmos, and there is nothing from which to
would be its movement, it means that it moves itself. А
this means that its elements are the same, from whence the "living" them
matter (hylozoism).
[39]
3. {Abstract-all categoricality}. Since
Objectivity is not the whole thing, but only one of its moments,
abstractly isolated from the whole thing, it means that also the elements,
and self-moving matter (of which they are composed), and the arising from
The space is only abstractly universal at this stage.
categories.
4. {Intuition}. Nevertheless, since the sensuous-material
space, as well as everything in it, are objects of vision,
of hearing, touch, and other sense sensations, then all of the above
The above abstract-all-general categories are given at this stage only
intuitively, or only visually and descriptively.
5. {Intuitive Dialectic}. Since the corporeal element and
logical categories can only be thought of together in the order of
of the dialectical doctrine of the unity of opposites, insofar
Almost all of the ancient classics, by necessity, turn out to be
dialectic. However, at that early stage, where the cosmos as an object
thought intuitively, we get a dialectic, too, rather
intuitive-descriptive rather than logical-categorical.
Thus, the universal world fire and the logos are identified by Heraclitus,
but not in the order of a logically sound system of categories, but in the
The order of the actual attribution of the logos to the universal
cosmic fire. Becoming in Heraclitus does not arise in
The order in which the categories are analyzed, but in the order in which the
actual
[40]
The following are some of the most important elements of the cosmic life of the
the other and therefore creating a dialectic, but, of course, not yet
intuitive. The same can be said about the difference between thinking and feeling
in
Parmenides, the corporeal nature of numbers in Pythagoreanism, the presence of
of everything in everything by Anaxagoras, etc.
6. {Attainability and contingency, inevitable for the pure
intuitivism}. Since all abstract-universal categories are given
only intuitively, then the possibility arises by itself and
even the need for even the most controversial and dependent only on
The human subject's assertions of the subject-human
consciousness. This led to the activities of the sophists in the fifth century B.C,
which proved the invalidity of all that had gone before them.
natural philosophy and its dependence on man as the "measure of things,
which was not subjectivism at all, but was only a necessity
to consider the sensuous-material cosmos not just as a
hmrshrhbmn this object. Therefore, from a strict historical point of view
The role of sophistry has been quite positive in proving the full
the insufficiency of intuitive dialectics alone and
The need for a thought dialectic, a discursive dialectic.
7. {Four Classical Periods}. Two periods of the classics we have
just outlined. These are (1) the early classics, when the sensu
The material cosmos is viewed predominantly intuitively, and
(2) that period of {medium} classics, when the cosmos was viewed as a
[41]
(a) discursive-negative only. The other period of the middle
classics - b) Socrates, applies discourse not to expose
of Natural Philosophy at the time, but to find such general ideas,
which would have secured the intuition of the early classics from the casual,
conditional and unproven concepts.
But while Socrates himself was not concerned with nature, his disciple Plato
began to apply the Socratic theory of generality to the entire
natural philosophical field. And Plato must be regarded as already
representative (3) of the {mature} classics, and his method we find not in
intuition and not in discourse, but in a dialectic of a very different type-
purely categorical, noumenal (nous - ancient Greek, "mind").
Sometimes Plato's dialectic is called {speculative. From} the point of view
theoretical term for Plato is very appropriate, because
that the Latin word "speculum" means at once both mental
the construction, and the mental and visual givenness of that construction.
However, in view of the extraneous and unfortunate associations evoked in the
The term "Latin" is currently used in the
It is hardly advisable. The important thing here is that in
In constructing his dialectic, Plato immediately and simultaneously drew
The sensuous-material cosmos and as an intuitive-physical
The system of the United States of America is a system of
dialectically developed categories.
Aristotle deepened this dialectic to the extent of its {fluidity-
essence} application, which led him to interpret the sensu
material
[42]
the cosmos not as a dialectic of fixed and discrete categories, but
as their {entelechia}, that is, as fluid-substantial becoming.
We already consider Aristotle to be the exponent of (4) {late} classics.
This exhausted all possible spiritual reserve of understanding.
of the sensuous-material cosmos as only an object.

§2. EARLY CLASSICS

1. {The Early Classical Principle}, (a) With the above understanding

of philosophical history, it is clear that the early period of ancient philosophy
was a reflection of the early period of ancient slavery. But this
The early period of ancient slavery certainly could not have been
immediately very strongly developed, but was only quite direct
and a very visible arrangement of life, which did not require for itself
no evidence and no overly convenient and
systematic development. It was an early and quite
The slavery in question, which is underdeveloped and underdeveloped
differentiated, when the slave-owner knew each of his slaves,
when free labor is not yet entirely and finally
The slave was opposed to slave labor, and when the slave was, in fact
to say, only the helper of the freely arranging life
slaveholder.
True, this immediacy soon began to crumble.
bbhds population growth, territorial expansion, increasing complexity
needs and the ever-increasing difficulties of maintaining a coherent
as a small but steadily growing slave-owning polis. At
queued up for the release of
[43]
individual slaveholder from the authority of a too underdeveloped
and the immediate polis. But this kind of emancipation already led and
to the development of the subjective life of the individual, until then too
associated with the naive and patriarchal polis, which is precisely
very poorly put up with individual-subjective life. В
In ancient Greece it was the time of the seventh to the fourth century B.C., when
The slaveholding polis was created, when it flourished, when it
began to deteriorate due to the inability to support themselves with the former
patriarchal means, when it became necessary to unite with the
other polities into a larger state, and when finally,
The conquests of Alexander the Great and the emergence of
the need for military-monarchical organizations.
b) Using common terminology, but understanding it in
In the exact socio-historical sense, this entire period of antiquity
of philosophy can be called the {classic} period. However, this period
of the ancient classics was, of course, too extensive for us to
left him without any further separation. And, as we now
As we shall see, this division was quite profound and fundamental, although
Many scholars and expositors of ancient philosophy are far from
are always fully aware of both the unity of all these classics,
and in its principled separateness.
The fundamental unity of all these classics of ancient philosophy
We have already formulated it. This is the doctrine of the sensuous-material
cosmo-
[44]
in its objective givenness. As for its principled
separation, there is nowhere else to draw it from than from the definition of
of ancient philosophy itself. For we have said that every period of
of ancient philosophy is nothing more than a repetition of all the same
of ancient philosophy, but only with the foregrounding of the
or some predominant moment of it. These moments, we said, are
matter, idea, and the dialectic of matter and idea. Therefore, it will be quite
it is natural to find these same moments in the classical period as well.
c) Exactly, first we find a number of philosophers here,
who are interested in the sensuous-material cosmos as an absolute, but
given in objective-material form. And since matter for
The ancient world is nothing more than one aspect of the sensual, and
The first of the two, the second, the third, the third, the third, the third, the
third.
to appear here only the sensually perceived qualities of things. But
From this point of view, the closest, clearest, firmest was
earth. More fluid was the water, even more fluid was the air. But
These three elements still seemed too stable and too
little in keeping with those ordinary notions of the thing that
demanded not only the recognition of things in themselves, but also their
of their emergence and their destruction. Therefore, among the basic elements
fire, which was also interpreted as matter, also figured.
Only matter is much more fluid and subtle, much more
sparse. It is true that the fifth element was often recognized as well.
The matter, which had to be brought to the-
[45]
The fire not only destroyed everything, but also immediately
destroyed itself. Therefore, there was a need to think to oneself in such a way
element of matter, which will never again, under any circumstances
circumstances is not annihilated. And since the eternity of matter
was self-confessed, and it was impossible to imagine her
chaek|, it was obviously necessary to recognize also such an element
of matter, which would remain unchanged in all its changes and
that would be thinner, lighter, and more inclusive than fire itself. In those
The first of these was the ether; it was either recognized as a separate
existing, or was especially thin and light, especially
an all-encompassing kind of fire, a kind of light.
d) It is the doctrine of the sensuous-material cosmos as an absolute,
consisting of four or five specified material elements,
was what constituted the initial period of ancient philosophy, its
{early} classics. There were famous names: Thales, Pythagoras,
Parmenides, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Democritus, and many others.
2. {The principle of the early classics in its development}. a) Now we
pointed to the basic principle of the early classics in ancient philosophy
as to the advancement of four or five material elements in the
as the basis of all philosophy. However, to stop there was
would only be the first approach to the merits of the case. The whole point is that
The external and purely visual side of a thing is by no means the whole
the whole thing. There are many other sides to every thing,
which are quite realistic, i.e.
[46]
are perceived quite sensually, but are by no means reducible only to
visual or tactile qualities of a thing. But the mere fact that
material elements are brought to the fore in the early classics
plan, testifies to many other things, and above all to two
approaches to reality.
b) Exactly, it is clear in the first place that such an elementary
approach to reality is complete and absolute {objectivism}.
The sensuous-material cosmos, which here, as elsewhere in the
antiquity, is in the first place, given only in the form of its
material elements, that is, primarily in a purely objective way.
All other sensory-material aspects of the cosmos, and above all
the soul and mind of the cosmos are by no means denied (otherwise it was
would no longer be ancient philosophy), but still do not occupy the first
and occupy the second, third, and even more distant places.
And secondly, bringing the material elements to the forefront
is necessarily the result of some kind of abstraction,
since any real thing is not just a collection of
of its material elements. Therefore, the basic principle of the early
The classical in ancient philosophy by necessity turns out to be the doctrine of
of objective substance, and, moreover, established with the help of
{abstract all-general categories}. There is no doctrine of the subjective
side of reality, there are no other sides
reality, and therefore it is objective substanceality,
established by means of abstract all-general categories. Therefore,
In vain are found in the early an
[47]
In the classic, there is only one childish, quite primitive and overly
naive empiricism. In fact, it is a very strict and quite
a certain philosophical position, for which it is not at all about water
or air, but in an objective-substantial point of view with a very
The stubbornly held principle of abstract-general categoricality.
c) Of course, it can be said that in the ancient classics of all
of dialectics puts matter in the foreground. This is correct. But
antique matter is not only earth, water, air, and fire at all.
And if these elements are taken here in isolation from the general antique
worldview, we therefore argue that these elements
The early Classical period was viewed only in the form of abstract
categories. Of course, there was also its own theory of the idea, and therefore its
own
dialectics, but these kinds of ideas have also been interpreted so far
is still too abstract, and therefore so is the dialectic of idea and matter
rp`jrnb`k`q| is still too descriptive and too intuitive.
This state of affairs, of course, could not continue in the
of ancient philosophy for a long time. Here, in the middle of the fifth century, it
became clear
The whole great philosophical current, which we no longer call the
early but middle classics, and in which the earlier rejected
The subjective side of the thing has already received for itself a solid and very
lasting recognition.
3 {Overview of philosophical trends}. On the basis of the so understood
The sensuous-material cosmos as an object, itself
of course, there are-
[48]
The different strands of the early classics, of which each
emphasized this or that moment of the sensuous-material cosmos
and gave this point precedence without denying
other points, which were already of secondary importance. If
The sensuous-material cosmos was, first, the matter of the physical
elements and, secondly, their design, then the philosophical directions