AbstractThis paper reinterprets Anaximander of Miletus (c. 610–546 BCE) through the lens of theNeo‐Pre‐Platonic Naturalist (NPN) framework, particularly its Zero Principle (ZP): thatany determinate system requires an indeterminate complement.1 Against Aristotle’s sub-stance‐oriented reading—which systematically recast the Apeiron as hylē aoristos (indefinitematter)—I argue that Anaximander’s Apeiron is not an indefinite material substrate but the nec-essary indeterminate ground for the emergence of determinate entities.2 His single preservedfragment (Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 24.13) outlines a four‐step cycle of iden-tity: (1) the boundless ground (Apeiron), (2) the cut of individuation (Adikia), (3) the measureof distinction (Time), and (4) the re‐cut of dissolution (Dikē). A rigorous etymological analysisreveals that Anaximander’s specific lexical choices—contrasted with the substance‐based vocabu-lary available to him—point decisively toward a relational ontology in which identity is tempo-rary and maintained through contrast with an unbounded background.3 The striking structuralparallels with modern thermodynamics are not anachronistic but demonstrate that Anaximan-der intuited the logical architecture of identity that physics would later formalize—what the NPNframework terms the General Zero Principle (GZP).4 By recovering Anaximander’s originalinsight through the NPN lens, we correct a longstanding Aristotelian misreading and establishthe Zero Principle as a foundational metaphysical concept with enduring relevance for processphilosophy, systems theory, and the philosophy of science.Keywords: Anaximander, Apeiron, Zero Principle, General Zero Principle, relational ontology,etymology, Presocratic philosophy, thermodynamics, contrast, identity, time, Neo‐Pre‐PlatonicNaturalism
A Mon, study studied this question.