COEXISTENCE AS A FORM OF EXISTENCE: THE ANCIENT ORIGINS OF ECOLOGICAL THINKING
Abstract
The article explores the concept of co-being as a form of existence rooted in ancient philosophy, particularly in the thought of Heraclitus. The authors argue that the problem of co-being – namely, the mutual existence of the human being, nature, society, and the cosmos – belongs to the sphere of fundamental ontological questions, as it reflects the mode of human existence in the world and its relation to the whole. The study traces how the ancient notion of φύσις in the philosophy of the Milesian school, Anaximander, and Heraclitus shaped an understanding of being as a dynamic, self-unfolding process that maintains the unity of all forms of existence. Heraclitus’s principle of the unity of opposites, according to which conflict and tension constitute the condition of harmony, is interpreted as the first philosophical formulation of the idea of co-being.
Drawing on interpretations by modern scholars of ancient philosophy (E. Theodossiou, V. Manimanis, R. Neels, K. Begley, N.-L. Cordero) the authors demonstrate that early Greek thought on phýsis presupposes a relational ontology, in which being is conceived not as a set of isolated entities but as a network of interrelations and mutual dependencies. This ontology of wholeness and interpenetration provides the philosophical foundations for contemporary ecological thinking. Within this context, co-being signifies not merely an ethical demand for coexistence but the very mode of human existence in which the individual is inseparable from the natural and cosmic whole.
The ancient conception of world unity expressed through phýsis and logos is interpreted as a philosophical prototype of the modern ecosystemic model of being. The authors emphasize that a return to this worldview principle may offer a way to overcome technocratic and anthropocentric modes of thought that have contributed to the current ecological and spiritual crises. The restoration of co-being thus appears as an ontological precondition for the formation of a new ecological culture and an ethics of responsibility for the integrity of life. Therefore, the philosophy of co-being is understood not only as a rethinking of ancient heritage but also as a conceptual response to the challenges of modern civilization, which urgently requires the harmonization of the relations between humanity, nature, and the cosmos.
Downloads
References
Anatska, N. V., & Anatskaia, N. V. (2008). The formation of ecological knowledge: Stages of development. Bulletin of NTUU “KPI”. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 3, 7-11. https://ela.kpi.ua/server/api/core/bitstreams/6d9310c1-09f6-4ba5-b5a4-839bc254960c/content (In Ukrainian)
Karpash, O. M., Bloshchynska, V. A., & Karpash, M. O. (2021). Philosophy, environmental ethics, and sustainable development. Scientific and Technical Journal, 2 (24), 123-129. https://esbur.com.ua/web/uploads/pdf/Ecological%20Safety%20and%20Balanced%20Use%20of%20Resources%20Vol.%2012,%20No.%202,%202021-123-130.pdf(In Ukrainian)
Kruts, O. A. (2024). The evolution of the concept of “integrity” as a philosophical phenomenon. Bulletin of the National Technical University “KhPI”. Series: Current Issues in the Development of Ukrainian Society, (2), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.20998/2227-6890.2024.2.05 (In Ukrainian)
Martynenko, O. (2021). Synthesis in static and dynamic aspects in the genealogies of Parmenides and Heraclitus. Humanities Studies: Collection of Scientific Papers of the Ivan Franko Drohobych State Pedagogical University. Series "Philosophy", 43, 89–95. https://doi.org/10.24919/2522-4700.43.12 (In Ukrainian)
Tahlina, Y. S. (2004). Specific features of human–nature relations at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. International scientific conference "Karazin Natural Science Studies" (June 14-16, 2004, Kharkiv, Ukraine): conference proceedings / V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Kharkiv: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. (In Ukrainian)
Tahlina, Y. S. (2011). Factors of environmental ethics: Responsibility as an aspect of the development of “Human–Nature” interaction. Bulletin of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, (958-II), Series: Theory of Culture and Philosophy of Science. Kharkiv. https://periodicals.karazin.ua/thcphs/article/view/2172/2470 (In Ukrainian)
Shahun, Ye. M., & Chkheailo, I. I. (2025). Environmental ethics and the new paradigm of human–nature relations. Beketov's chemical readings. Theory and practice of crisis situations: materials of the International Scientific-Practical Conference of Higher Education Applicants and Young Scientists, Kharkiv, February 12–14, 2025 / Kharkiv. National University of Municipal Economics named after O. M. Beketov, Algol Chemicals SIA (Riga, Latvia), EMO Frite Company (Celje, Slovenia) [and others]; [editors: O. I. Pylypenko, O. I. Fesenko]. Kharkiv: O. M. Beketov KhNUMG, 113-117 https://science.kname.edu.ua/images/dok/konferentsii/2025/Tezi% 20konferencij%202025/BChCh_2025.pdf#page=114 (In Ukrainian)
Begley, K. (2016). Duality and opposition in Heraclitus and modern philosophy of language and linguistics (PhD dissertation, Trinity College Dublin).
Begley, K. (2021). Heraclitus against the naïve paratactic metaphysics of mere things. Ancient Philosophy Today: DIALOGOI, 3(1), 74–97. https://doi.org/10.3366/anph.2021.0043
Cordero, N. L. (2022). The dynamic conception of being in the first philosophers and the notion of φύσις. Journal of Ancient Philosophy, 16(2), 1–23.
Graham, D. W. (2008). Heraclitus: Flux, order, and knowledge. In P. Curd & D. W. Graham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of presocratic philosophy (pp. 169–188). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195146875.003.0006
Graham, D. W. (2023). Heraclitus. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ win2023/entries/heraclitus/
Heraclitus. Fragments (in Greek, French, and English). http://philoctetes.free.fr/heraclite.pdf
Idang, G. E. (2013). Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes as pathfinders of modern science. International Journal of Philosophy, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20130104.12
Neels, R. (2023). Opposites and explanations in Heraclitus. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 62, 1–40. https://philpapers.org/archive/NEEOAE.pdf
Theodossiou, E., & Manimanis, V. N. (2010). The cosmology of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana Supplement, 15, 204. https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/2010MSAIS..15..204T.
Copyright (c) 2026 Юлія Тагліна, Володимир Лютий

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication of this work under the terms of a license Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.


3.gif)



