Archeology of Existentialism

 Let's talk about the origin story of the concept of "arkhe." In Greek, "arkhe" means first or beginning, and ancient Greek philosophers used this term to develop a theory to explain something. For example, according to Thales, the arkhe (the first cause) was water. In fact, the first cause of something's existence is the existence itself; that is, it's an existential approach. When humanity came into existence, people became aware of things and sought a reason. This reason, for some, was water, while for others, it was earth. But if humanity didn't exist, there would be no cause either; therefore, as humanity develops and matures, it begins to seek a reason, and this search is called the concept or theory of "arkhe." Existence itself is an arkhe; the real arkhe, however, represents us—human beings. If we did not exist, who would know that water is water or that earth is earth, and who would name water as the first and unchanging cause of everything? After all, earth wouldn't know it's earth, and water wouldn't know it's water. Because we exist, we gave names to these concrete realities, deified them, and described them as our first cause. When it comes to the origin and development of humanity, some may put forward the theory of evolution and call arkhe evolution. However, evolution requires matter, that is, a being to evolve. This actually corresponds to the existential concept I've mentioned—existence is at the root of everything. For example, to make paper, you need wood and water, just as we needed humans to name earth or air as the arkhe. However, I'd like to point out that the concept of existence doesn't apply only to us, but the arkhe of existence is valid only for us because humans have the ability to think. A being that cannot think cannot comprehend arkhe or anything else. So if some claim that arkhe is not existence but the human brain, we can refute this theory by saying: What would a wheel be good for if there were no car? For nothing, right? The human brain is the same. What use would it be if there were no humans to use it? Therefore, it would be absurd to label the brain as arkhe. If someone asks, "Can the concept of arkhe be identified with every being?" we can refute this theory as well by saying that this is equivalent to asking whether a table can know that water is water. The concept of arkhe cannot be tied to every being because a table cannot know the elements it is made of. Therefore, the concept or theory of arkhe does not conflict with every being. According to Thales, the first substance is water itself, but can't we consider the substances within a substance as arkhe? In other words, can't we define the elements that make up water, or even the atoms that form those elements, as arkhe? Thales did not label these as arkhe; he simply said water. But if we accept a substance as the first matter, shouldn't we also accept the elements and atoms within it? These questions actually clash with my existential theory because it is humanity that names everything in the universe and proves that existence exists. This suggests that the fundamental matter is human beings. Existence is a substance that continues to exist on a timeline and is part of this timeline. Simply put: "If you exist, you are."