This text reflects on the interpretation of Pre-Socratic philosophy, specifically the question of what remains constant amidst change. The author examines J. B. Kozák's teaching, which identifies various 'archai' (origins)—such as water, air, or fire—as persistent elements in early Greek thought. Initially, the author doubted this interpretation due to an assumed identity between constancy and immutability. However, the text argues that persistence does not necessarily imply stasis; instead, it can manifest as repetition, cycles, or returns. This perspective reevaluates Heraclitus's fire and Anaximander's Apeiron, suggesting that the 'constant' can be indefinite and dynamic. Furthermore, the author critiques Aristotle's classification of these thinkers as 'hylozoists', arguing that the term 'hylé' (matter) is anachronistic and misleading when applied to early thought. Proposing the term 'archeozoists' instead, the text concludes that for the earliest philosophers, the enduring principle was not a fixed, determined substance but a dynamic foundation for the very process of change.