Arkhe (ἀρχή)

In Heraclitus' philosophy, the concept of "arkhe" refers to the fundamental principle or starting point. According to Heraclitus, the universe is in a constant state of change, and behind this change lies a principle. This principle, or starting point, is expressed by Heraclitus as fire. For him, everything is in a continual process of transformation, and fire is the foundation of this transformation. Thus, the concept of arkhe forms a central point in Heraclitus' philosophical quest to understand the basic structure of the universe. The arkhe is considered the primary and first matter, and Heraclitus interprets this concept as fire. However, for the concept of arkhe, which is accepted as the first cause, to be valid, all living and non-living things must have originated from it. For Thales, water was the arkhe, but he did not consider the elements and atoms within water. If something is to be the first cause, it should not contain any other matter within itself. Fire, too, contains gas molecules, meaning that fire is not a pure substance. Heraclitus regarded only fire as the arkhe, the first matter, but did not consider its molecular structure, thus disqualifying fire from being arkhe. The primary substance should not contain anything within itself, and it must be a tangible substance so that other materials can derive from and mutate from this pure matter.

Can Atom Be the Arkhe?

The answer to this is quite simple. As we always say, for something to be considered the primary matter, it must contain only one substance. Since the atom contains many substances and elements, it does not qualify as the arkhe. In fact, it is incorrect to refer to it as the arkhe because concepts are abstract in this world. They may seem to exist in the real world but do not actually possess a true existence. The arkhe is actually a problem. According to Anaximander, the first cause (arkhe) is apeiron. Apeiron is a concept introduced by the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander as the fundamental element of the universe. For Anaximander, apeiron is boundless, infinite, and undefined; it is the source of everything and the ultimate reality. Apeiron is free from any qualities or limitations, allowing for change and movement. Anaximander believed that apeiron existed before the other elements that constitute the universe and saw it as the origin of all beings. The concept of apeiron represents an important step in understanding the nature of the universe in early Greek philosophy and continues to be discussed in philosophical debates today. However, apeiron cannot be the arkhe either because the arkhe cannot be something infinite or unobservable; it must be the opposite—observable. For instance, existentialism has an observable arkhe, like witnessing the existence of a flower.

Can the Arkhe Be Perceived Through Our Senses?

In reality, apart from the existentialist arkhe, none of the arkhe concepts can be perceived through our senses. The reason for this is that in Western philosophy, arkhe is expressed as a concept, and concepts are perceived abstractly. Therefore, none of the arkhe concepts, except the existentialist arkhe, can be perceived through our senses. So why do I consider the existentialist arkhe superior to the others? The reason is this: When I can see the existence of something, why should I believe in a prediction of something whose existence or non-existence I cannot see or feel? Logically speaking, the correct concept of arkhe, which is visible, is superior to those that cannot be seen, leading to the superiority of the existentialist arkhe.

Who First Used the Concept of Arkhe?

The term "arkhe" is an important concept in ancient Greek philosophy. It was first used by Anaximander (610–546 BCE). Anaximander defined "arkhe" as the "beginning of everything" or the "fundamental principle." According to him, this principle should not be a limited or specific thing; it should be the foundation of everything. Therefore, he identified this principle as the infinite, undefined apeiron. This is regarded as the first use of the term "arkhe." However, the arkhe proposed by other philosophers was more worldly. For example, Aristotle considered Thales' arkhe to be "water." Yet, Aristotle referred to the arkhe as a concept, although water itself is not a conceptual entity but a worldly one. This reveals a confusion in Aristotle's thinking: while he assigns conceptual value to the problem of the arkhe, he also proposes that water is the arkhe. This is similar to saying, "There is no wooden table in my house, but at the same time, there is a wooden table in my house," creating contradictions that pose such philosophical problems.