THE ORIGIN OF PHILOSOPHY: FROM MYTH TO LOGOS

“Philosophy” comes from the Greek words “phileo” (love) and “sophia” (wisdom) and means love of wisdom. In turn, the most important sign of wisdom, a wise attitude to life is a special relation of a person to the world, associated with his perception as a special kind of integrity, in which a person occupies a special place. Such an attitude toward the integrity of the perception of being was inherent in man even at the level of primitive consciousness and remains one of the most important aspects of philosophical comprehension of the world today. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly dwell on those forms of consciousness and the features of its manifestation that preceded the formation of philosophy.

Within the framework of primitive consciousness, the individuality of a person, his inner “I” were realized in a different form than today. Modern man quite clearly distinguishes his own individuality from the individuality of other people and from the reality that surrounds him. This is a condition of cognitive activity when standing outside of me can act as an object of cognition, be objectively shared with me. In primitive consciousness, such a contrast did not exist. This, on the one hand, limited the cognitive abilities of a person (from the perspective of today’s understanding of cognition), and on the other hand, allowed him to perceive the world whole and undivided. Therefore, man did not oppose himself to nature, but identified himself with it, just as he did not oppose himself to collective consciousness (a set of individual consciousnesses that have common features), realizing it as a necessity of his own existence. A man of this period is still not in a position to pose questions to nature; he involuntarily perceives it and thereby, of course, cognizes it, but in other ways than today’s science.

One of the forms of human perception of the world at the level of primitive consciousness is myth, describing the world in its integrity and the relationship of everything with everything. A myth is not just a cognition of the surrounding reality, but a peculiar system of cognition — direct perception, the results of which are not modern concepts, but a combination of images. Mythological representations could only be images and nothing else, because the “image”, no matter how we wise, there is a visual “appearance”, a visual “external” side of the subject. Spatial, limited by external visual givenness, one-time and motionless representations generated “images”, in which for all their totality did not contain a fraction of generalization… The myth-making image is a derivative of myth-creating thinking with all the laws of myth-making perception of space, time and reason, with its the unity of subject and object.

t should be understood that the myth had its own, internal logic in the framework of cognition — perception, which was no less rigid in following the given rules than modern formal logic. It is another matter that these rules, this “logic of myth” were based on completely different prerequisites, since this type of thinking was not abstract, but specific, did not dismember, but, on the contrary, tried to unite literally everything in a single consciousness, and finally, it was realized it is in a metaphorical form. This also explains the poetry of ancient philosophy, which grew out of figurative thinking and moved from it to abstract. “The world, seen by primitive man, is re-created by his subjective consciousness as a second independent objective being, which from now on begins to live in contradiction with real, unnoticed by consciousness consciousness. Thus, from an involuntary, biologically peculiar cognition of the world, a connected worldview system emerges, remaining to live in the form famous forms of culture”.

Thus, myth as a form of a holistic, synthetic perception of the world acts as a form of consciousness adequate to the primitive era, and therefore, it not only explains the world, but also performs regulatory and pragmatic functions. Moreover, since mythological prescriptions did not require additional substantiation, regulatory prescriptions here are very strict and do not allow discussions. Oddly enough, in philosophy this is still preserved, but not in a direct form (since philosophy is a dialogue form of consciousness), but indirectly, in the form of developing limit systems of justification of truth, as if coming from the name of pure reason, absolute spirit and etc. Therefore, the philosopher always remains not only a carrier of knowledge, but also a preacher of truths, revealing, leading a person along the true path.

The next feature of the myth, which then goes into philosophy, is an attempt to present the most complete description of being in the form of a cosmogonic and eschatological holistic picture of the world. If science describes a real reality by its dismemberment by subject areas, then the myth deals with a special, consciously constructed reality. The myth does not divide the integrity of being into its individual fragments, but, on the contrary, creates the integrity of perception, combining the real and the ideal, conscious and unconscious, giving a holistic picture of being.

Philosophy, having switched to a rational-theoretical way of thinking, using abstract concepts and categories describing real reality (like sciences), nevertheless retained, which manifests itself in a number of concepts, the conscious installation of special realities that can not always correspond to reality. The peculiarity of the myth that “literally connects everything with everything” passes into it, which, in fact, becomes a sign of “speculative” thinking, το is the reflection and self-reflection of the philosopher on the meaning of life, on the problems of being, etc. Historically, it was the theoretical lack of myth that led to the fact that “speculation found unlimited opportunities for development, it was not restrained by the scientific (ie, disciplined) search for truth”. It is the speculative nature and the peculiar “whirlwind” of specific problems that make it possible to philosophically approach the understanding of the world, especially when it comes to problems that are insufficiently or completely unstructured and not amenable to particular scientific methods of cognition.

The unity in the myth of prerational components and other forms of human experience of the world can be traced in ancient philosophy, where great importance was attached to the oral and dialogical form of reasoning. Primitive man heard the world literally, and the principle of speaking itself reflected the understanding-grasp of the meaning of the cosmos. Therefore, the speaker was at the same time prophesying, personifying the broadcasting Logos. “The Logos speaks with trees, land, birds, animals, water, people, things”. Accordingly, a philosopher who claims to understand the meanings of the world must be able to listen and speak (broadcast, prophesy, etc.). Here lies the reason for the refusal of many ancient philosophers to fix their thoughts in writing, and even in the latter these thoughts are realized in the form of a dialogue, that is, a communication genre recorded by the speech. Philosophy is first of all a dialogue, a dialogue between a person and another person, a dialogue between a person and the Cosmos.

Thus, summing up some results, we can say that myth, acting as the first historical form of a holistic understanding of the world at the level of primitive consciousness, was one of the most important sources of philosophical knowledge and a number of features of mythological consciousness went into philosophy, undergoing a certain rational interpretation. At the same time, philosophy retained in itself the non-rational components of mythological consciousness, associated with a poetic, figurative perception of the world, which are no less important for any person and for a holistic sense of being. Philosophy, therefore, arises as overcoming mythological consciousness with its indivisibility of subject-object relations and from the very beginning acts as a form of the most rational comprehension of being. This allows us to briefly outline the path to the formation of philosophy as a transition from myth to logos.

Another feature of the formation of philosophy is, as follows from the etymology of this concept, its desire for wisdom, which forces us to briefly dwell on what was hidden behind this concept in pre-philosophical and early philosophical systems. It is traditionally believed that philosophy, moving from myth to logos, that is, choosing a rationally theoretical path of its own development, at the same time overcomes its ancient understanding of love for wisdom. However, it seems to us that this is far from the case and that the traditional antique understanding of philosophy even today allows us to point out some of its features that cannot be revealed without the concept of “wisdom”.

Initially, what was really connected with the structure of mythological consciousness, wisdom was a special form of bringing to the individual consciousness knowledge about the world, principles of human behavior. Wisdom acted as a special type of regulation, first of all, of everyday human behavior, was deeply practical and based on the experience of generations. However, the analysis of ancient philosophy, which devoted a great place to this concept, allows us to identify its other interpretations or peculiar interpretations that allow us to include this concept in the structure of philosophical thinking.

This does not mean at all that in philosophy some absolute rational knowledge is achieved. Moreover, in philosophy this is impossible in principle, but the desire for rationality itself is maximum. Therefore, any irrationalistic philosophical system is essentially rational, since it, unlike faith, appeals to reason, substantiating and proving its claims.

First of all, wisdom denoted a special attitude that guides a person along the path of purposeful and expedient activity, since it was based on knowledge of higher goals. It was a kind of art of life. At the same time, wisdom means, as A.F. Losev, some flexibility of the mind, or, in the usual use of this property, is a trick. This property of the flexibility of the mind allowed a person to develop a dialectical relation to the world.

Wisdom also denotes a “strict universal cosmic structure”. And given that the ancient Greeks perceived the Cosmos as a kind of cosmic soul, it becomes clear that Heraclitus’s description of wisdom as speaking truth and action in accordance with nature, listening to it, means that wisdom is based on certain universal laws that lie outside the subject. So, wisdom is a perception of the ordering of the world and knowledge of the fundamental principles of this ordering.

Socrates supplements the listed characteristics of wisdom with a special understanding of it as the integrity (we can say, harmony) of the mind, irreducible “to any separate and specific functions of pure thinking. But this is not enough. Sophia of Socrates has a close relationship to virtue in general, or rather, to practical practical activity generally”. Thus, in wisdom, mental and practical activity is combined.

At the same time, according to Socrates, wisdom is also the possession of a word, an artistic word, poetry. Developing these ideas, Plato discusses wisdom as a kind of semantic structure of the Cosmos that determines all the spiritual activity of man.

Aristotle speaks of wisdom as a special kind of knowledge, which is at the same time a doctrine of the four-principle structure of each thing, that is, a doctrine of its idea, matter, reason and purpose … A wise one who not only knows the essence of a thing and the fact of existence of this essence, but also knows the reason for the thing and its purpose. In antiquity and later, wisdom is supplemented by another property inherent in it — knowledge of the criteria for evaluating a person’s actions and determination of his virtue. Wisdom is knowledge of the nature and causes of good and evil. In addition, wisdom is also the knowledge of God and a kind of consciousness that goes beyond the rational. Thus, we can say that wisdom during this period acted as a special form of attitude towards the world, which was based on knowledge of the fundamental principles of the structure of being (Cosmos), adequate to the ancient stage of development of thinking and proceeding from the idea of ​​universal ordering of the world, which, in turn, , allowed her to act as a worldview regulative of expedient human activity.

The sage as a carrier-relay of wisdom combined two opposite principles, which often poured out in the form of his behavior and attitude towards people and society. On the one hand, he acted as a kind of guardian of traditions, consolidating the accepted foundations of life, and on the other, on the contrary, as their destroyer and critic. The right of such a critical attitude to the world was due to the fact that the sage possessed some kind of higher knowledge, which was by no means accessible to everyone and which was by no means always realized in society. This position of the sage, his personal responsibility for his own actions gave his own life in some cases the character of asceticism, which brought wisdom, and then philosophy, closer to religion. Thus, philosophy is born as a craving, a love of wisdom. The expression of wisdom can be, as we noted above, just a wise act, but the main form of its expression is the word. It is through the latter that the sage addresses other people, and the philosopher later, using the word, substantiates the truth of the propositions put forward. The word of the philosopher is always addressed to the mind, this is a kind of conceptual and rational expression of the desire for wisdom. However, the words, as noted by A.N. Chanyshev, there are different, as well as later disciplined disciplines involved in the study of words and concepts. A poet operates with a word, a word (concept) lies at the center of logical constructions, a word (or their combination, text) becomes an object of the science of philology. But if any word is important for the latter (including, for example, profanity), it is really love for any word, then “philosophy as love for wisdom is nothing but love for a wise word… In this sense, we can say that philosophy is part of philology”.

Historically, the formation of philosophy reflects the fact of overcoming worldly wisdom and the transition to a rationally sound system of knowledge. However, philosophy cannot and will never be able to completely move away from the elements of insufficiently proven and substantiated knowledge, which nevertheless is included in the structure of a particular philosophical concept. This is recorded in a situation where instead of possessing absolute and final knowledge, on behalf of which the sage always speaks, there is only a craving, love (“phileo”) for wisdom (“sophia”), on behalf of which the philosopher stands. That is, the place of the window and unambiguous result replaces the process, the desire. Thus, philosophy strives for wisdom, trying to make a connection between rationally developed ideas about the essence of the world and man, which in itself is its most important feature, and at the same time tries to rationally substantiate the activities of people, including their everyday actions, their life and social behavior, their relationship.

The desire for wisdom reflects the moment of value attitude to being. There may even be a question: is not wisdom, or wise philosophizing, that axis of coordinates on which all other varieties of philosophical reflections are tied? The desire for wisdom gives philosophy a special holistic character, ensures the continuity of all components in the diverse relationships between man and the world, between man and man. Philosophy cannot be indifferent to any method or type of knowledge, nor to any value system. This is an open system, which is a reflection on the most general, ultimate issues of being and at the same time is a concrete and practical reflection on the use of the results of this reflection in people’s lives. Such a wide mental coverage both in the statement and in the solution of problems gives rise to a combination in it, on the one hand, of a rational-theoretical or reflective approach, and on the other hand, an orientation toward the development of value orientations that are based on the phenomenon of faith, on the emotionally-figurative, associative thinking. The desire for wisdom gives philosophy a special value position aimed at integrative perception of the world.

So, philosophy arises as overcoming myth (the path from myth to logos) and at the same time as overcoming worldly wisdom. “Philosophy is intellectual, rational, logical and logical wisdom. There can be no illogical philosophy”. According to witty remark A.N. Chanyshev, if mythology was the mother of philosophy, then her father was intelligence. That is why it is based on all types of spiritual development of human being. Losing touch with the sciences, philosophy degenerates into a “servant of theology”, and through it religion. Losing a connection with the artistic-mythological-religious worldview complex, philosophy degenerates into a “servant of science”. As some philosophers strive to break beyond myth and wisdom, rational and non-rational — in philosophy this way has no prospects, since philosophy is a holistic, synthetic formation based on all forms of spiritual development of human being, and in this sense, the concept of philosophy as love for mu grow takes on new meaning, as if the value of rehabilitating this ancient understanding for our time.

Summing up the preliminary result, we can say that the moment of the beginning of the emergence of philosophy in culture is its appearance as a special form of a person’s theoretical reflection on being and on himself, which is based not only on a rational way of thinking, but also on the artistic and emotional comprehension of being.

In this connection, the question seems reasonable: is philosophy in all cultures realized in such a way that, in turn, is associated with the problem of the time and place of occurrence of philosophy.

First of all, it should be noted (and this is also true for the modern understanding of philosophy) that the indicated combination of rational-theoretical and value approaches as characteristics of a philosophical subject in specific cultures can be implemented in different ways. There are cultures in which the problems of the value-emotional comprehension of the world and man come to the fore; there are, on the contrary, cultures in which the orientation of philosophy toward self-expression is realized more precisely as theoretical knowledge (with an ideal vector directed towards science). But in any case, philosophy poses these problems in the ultimate theoretical form. Thus, the diversity of emerging philosophical systems does not at all destroy the relative unity of understanding of the essence and tasks of philosophy, which remains true for its current interpretations.

A concrete historical reference point of the beginning of philosophy is unlikely to be ever determined, since, firstly, it is impossible to accurately and unequivocally establish the very moment of the birth of philosophy as a special form of consciousness that distinguishes it from other forms, for example, from myth, religion, science, etc. Secondly, as we have already noted, there are certain differences in the understanding of philosophy in different types of culture, and accordingly, in this case, the emergence of philosophy in these cultures will be determined by this understanding. Nevertheless, from the very moment of its inception in philosophy it is possible to single out some features that are valid for many civilizations of antiquity.

First of all, philosophy everywhere emerges as a form of pre-philosophy, representing a special education already with the beginnings of a philosophical approach to the world, but bearing the imprint of a mythological and religious attitude to it. Such pre-philosophy is a combination of a wide variety of knowledge about literally all areas of human activity that have not yet stood out as independent: from mathematics to medicine and cosmetics. Philosophy as such in this education manifests itself as a structure that ensures the connection of all this knowledge into a relatively unified whole. This initial philosophical attitude already combines a rational-reflective approach with the development of value-worldview orientations for a person and with support for the entire set of relationships between a person and the world, for the whole wealth of opportunities (from rational to emotionally-imaginative) to comprehend the world.

Such an attitude toward the integrity of the comprehension of being and at the same time the relative homogeneity of philosophical problems (with the difference in the choice of problems by specific thinkers) gave reason to connect the emergence and formation of philosophy into a single whole, when the philosophical systems that originated and exist in different regions of the globe were represented as links of one philosophical chain, which culminated in some modern philosophical system. Hegel noted that the development of philosophy repeats the course of the sun. It is formed in the East, and in the West it flourishes as the pinnacle of philosophical thinking, fully realized in its own philosophical system. Therefore, the whole philosophy (both in its history and modern) is a single system, which is determined not by the concrete self-expression of a particular philosophical individual, but by the formulation and solution of problems specific to philosophy. Philosophy develops as the formation of human self-awareness.

Therefore, apparently, it is no coincidence that what we designate as philosophy today historically arises almost simultaneously in all then existing civilizations. “With all the difficulties and discrepancies in the chronography of philosophical doctrines, there is almost general agreement that the process of its formation takes place throughout the 7th-3rd centuries BC”.

During this period, as an overcoming of Sumerian mythology and epic, philosophical ideas about the world and the place of man in Babylon arise.

In Iran, it was during this period that Zoroastrianism arose with its teaching on the dependence of the structure of the world and the triumph of justice in it on the free will of man.

For Indian philosophy, if we consider it to be the formation of overcoming the pre-philosophical ideas, “erroneously referred to as the” philosophy of the Vedas, and the “design of the six systems of Indian philosophy”, this is also the period of the 6th-3rd centuries BC. At this point, classical orthodox philosophical systems arise such as Vedanta, yoga, and unorthodox philosophical systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Sankhya.

In Chinas, the same historical period arises Confucianism (Confucius — c. 551–479 BC), Laoism (Lao Tzu — VI-V centuries BC), Moism (Mo Tzu) and other options for philosophical comprehension of the world from skepticism to materialism and nihilism.

In Ancient Greece in the VIII century BC during this period, Homer and Hesiod created the first elements of a philosophical approach to the world, cosmo-theogonic systems of Orphics, and, finally, the philosophy of the pre-Socratics — VII-V century BC becomes the overcoming of the epic pre-philosophical stage.

In terms of the scale of the world historical process, these are indeed almost simultaneous events, and the chronological coincidence here is not accidental, although their “social simultaneity” is perhaps more important. This is what allowed the German philosopher K. Jaspers to talk about the axial time of world history, which is characterized by the fact that almost simultaneously within the framework of many cultures a sharp turn of history occurs and a “modern man” appears, a philosophizing man. He “is aware of being in general, of himself and his boundaries. The horror of the world and his own helplessness opens before him. Standing over the abyss, he poses radical questions, demands liberation and salvation… In this era, the main categories that we think in today, the foundations of world religions are laid, and today they determine the lives of people”.

The indicated social simultaneity was due to the fact that this period in all these cultures is characterized by a transition from early to late slavery, which is accompanied by huge changes in the social structure (urban growth, development of trade, the emergence of money capital, private ownership of land, etc.). “It is in such conditions that philosophy develops — not only once and not in one act, but during a long and complicated process — in Ancient Greece, India, China, as well as in pre-colonial Mexico, where this process was interrupted, like the whole development of this culture, the Spanish conquest”.

Thus, the emergence of philosophy is a kind of sociocultural explosion of self-consciousness of mankind, reflecting the fundamental changes that occur in the consciousness and thinking of a person in the whole culture.

And here we must make the necessary reservation regarding the historical and philosophical material described below and related to the fact that the formation of philosophy will be examined through the prism of primarily the development of ancient philosophy of Ancient Greece. First of all, this is due to the fact that in Ancient Greece that model of philosophy was realized, according to which we can imagine the emergence and development of philosophy in the most pure (classical) form. Naturally, when analyzing some other, for example, oriental, forms of philosophy, this model will require its own sociocultural refinement.

So, for example, one of the conditions for the development of philosophy (along with overcoming mythological consciousness and the separation of subject and object in the cognitive process) are some external sociocultural parameters that stimulate the development of philosophy as free thinking. This gave occasion to Hegel to say that true free thinking became possible only in Greece. “Due to this general connection of political freedom with freedom of thought, philosophy appears in history only to the extent and where the free state system is formed… philosophy therefore begins only in the Greek world”.

Unlike Ancient Greece, the development of philosophy in the East was carried out in the conditions of despotic states, which did not contribute to the development of free thinking. This led to the fact that the development of philosophy took a slightly different path. In particular, here the problems concerning the inner world of man acquire a greater aspect. This is realized either in the emergence of religious forms of philosophy, the premises of which are based on faith in the absolute, and the freedom of thought is limited by these premises, or in the development of ethical and aesthetic issues, when the knowledge of nature recedes into the background. Hegel, perhaps, too categorically wrote about this, that the Eastern people run away into “empty abstraction as infinite; this is found mainly among Hindus who torture themselves and go deep into a state of the deepest abstraction; for example, Hindus look for dozens years to the tip of their nose, and those around them feed them, they thus live without any spiritual content other than knowledge of abstraction; the content of this knowledge is, therefore, something completely finite. This, therefore, is not soil for freedom”. Greek philosophy since its inception has been trying to understand the world and man on the basis of rational comprehension, and the expression of this is the construction of many rational systems that explain one or another phenomenon of nature and human existence.

Let us take a closer look, which ensured the indicated political and, as a result, the mental freedom of the ancient Greeks, which led to the formation of philosophy.

Hegel drew attention to the fact that the geographical location of Greece was a certain prerequisite for the development of this type of philosophy. The country was a territory divided into many islands of land. There are no powerful rivers that permeate the whole country, large mountain isthmuses that separate it. The lack of “massive geographical relations,” as Hegel pointed out, ensured at the level of spiritual consciousness the realization of the principle of the diversity and flexibility of thinking, originally inherent in Greek philosophy.

In turn, this indirectly affected the state system of Ancient Greece. Since its territory was an island of settlements, fenced off by only low mountains and united by a common access to the sea, this, on the one hand, provided constant contact between the tribes, but, on the other hand, made it possible to develop relatively localized social and cultural relations that distinguished these settlements from each other. As a result, a territorial division of the country into a number of small districts (cantons) arose. “Such a relief created favorable conditions for the political organization that the Greeks called the polis”.

The relative cultural and geographical heterogeneity of the totality of the policy states led to the fact that they lived among themselves in constant rivalry. Between the policies constantly waged war, which is reflected in the fact that in Greece they never made peace, but there were only cease-fires, which, as a rule, were violated. This formed the special character of the Greeks, which is sometimes referred to by the term “agonality” (competition). The Greeks competed among themselves literally in everything. The rivalry acquired not only the character of wars, but was also fought in the economic, political, and cultural spheres. The Olympic Games, in which not only athletes participate, but also poets, playwrights, singers, dancers and even beauty contests, become a kind of peak in the spirit of competition. At the same time, it is not the material reward that is appreciated, which, however, was insignificant, but the glory of the winner. Gradually, this forms a special spiritual state of the personality of the ancient Greeks, when the shame and unwillingness of a person to cause disapproval from peers, and on any issue, acquire the character of absolute value, as well as the desire to prove oneself in the face of fellow tribesmen from the best side.

And finally, as a most important prerequisite for the formation of Greek philosophy as the formation of the free spirit of the ancient Greeks, they developed such a form of political government as democracy, which Hegel regarded as a work of art in politics. Although we, of course, must make a reservation that this was not a democracy for everyone. So, in the V century. BC. 130 thousand citizens lived in Athens, including their wives and children, about 70 thousand foreigners and 200 thousand slaves. At the same time, only male citizens had the right to vote, that is, about 30 thousand. This was a form of egalitarian democracy only with respect to the minority of the population, and slavery was a condition of this democracy.

Nevertheless, the peculiarities of the political structure of Ancient Greece led to an active political and cultural life, to elements of democracy and publicity in decision-making, which often manifested itself in the form of open disputes and discussions. The above agonism permeates philosophy, which takes an interactive form based on a clash of different points of view. And this, in turn, gives rise, on the one hand, to the evidential type of thinking, based on the development of various methods and types of evidence, which is later associated with such a philosophical discipline as logic. On the other hand, it complements the logical proof with psycho-emotional methods of influencing the human consciousness, which leads to the formation of such a discipline as rhetoric.

The culture of antiquity was imbued with the idea of ​​harmony, which also extended to all spheres of human life. There was no domination, for example, a cult of brute force or a physically powerless intellect. It is not by chance that Diogenes Laertius is ironic about Plato (from Greek “platus”— broad), whose real name was Aristocles, it remains to be seen whether he received this nickname for shoulder width as the winner of the Olympic Games, or for the width of his forehead, as a philosopher.

Thus, summing up some results, we can say that in ancient Greece the formation of philosophy was associated with a rationalistic overcoming of mythological consciousness. If in myths such problems as, for example, the problem of good and evil, good, responsibility, and others are of an artistic and symbolic nature, which, however, does not remove the moment of intuitive discoveries and insights, then philosophy is gradually striving to pose them in a rational form, justifying and proving the allegations. At the same time, philosophy perceives such a feature of the myth as a synthetic view of the world, combining the real and the ideal, the conscious and the unconscious, the rational and the extra-therapeutic, into a single whole. The installation of myth on a holistic understanding of being and the place in it of man deeply penetrates philosophy, distinguishing it from the very beginning from a differentiated, objective approach of sciences. In philosophy, the subject of mental activity, being a person, is not discarded. For philosophy, not only knowledge becomes important, but also the sphere of emotional experiences of a person, from which a person can never be completely free.

nother argument in favor of the choice of ancient Greek philosophy as the model of the formation of philosophy. The fact is that the rationalistic attitude of ancient Greek culture, in the center of which was the corresponding philosophy, gave rise to what we today call civilization. As Andre Bonnard wrote on this occasion: “[…] the Greek people were exactly the same people as any other […] His civilization was blooming and growing on the same black soil of superstition and abominations, on which all the peoples of the world grew up […] That this primitive, gullible and cruel people invented […] civilization — our civilization with you”. In this regard, Greek culture reflected the factor of mankind choosing a rational-technological path of development associated with both huge achievements and miscalculations, up to a threat to the very existence of mankind. Whether we like it or not, today’s world is developing precisely along this path.

At the same time, the emerging Greek philosophy does not absolutize the rationalistic attitude, and in it a great place is given to the figurative perception of the world. Before us is a kind of harmonious idea of ​​the world, of man’s place in the world. Moreover, the harmony of the world seems almost absolute. The mind dominates, with the help of which one can explain and justify everything, and the world is treated not only as something external, but also as a special creation of man. Just as a musician captures the harmony of sounds in this world, an artist captures the harmony of color, a sculptor captures the harmony of forms, a poet is the rhythm of the world, a philosopher captures the rationality of being revealed to us in the form of a system of concepts and categories, in the form of a rational logic of being.

The Greeks overcome mythological consciousness and create philosophy as a kind of system of abstract concepts, thereby making the transition from myth to logos. At the center of Greek philosophy is dialectics as a way of mentally linking into a harmonious whole the externally incompatible sides of an object or phenomenon, of the contradictions contained in them. The world is interpreted by them as a dialectical unity of idea and matter, soul and mind, is sensually material and is governed by the cosmic Mind. The philosophy of antiquity is natural-philosophical, since the installation for a holistic understanding of the world, with a lack of concrete material for linking all diversity, the entire mosaic of being, requires a special binding material in the form of Reason. Ancient philosophy gave rise to the development of what we call the European tradition in philosophy.