Heraclitus Study Resources

Heraclitus Two distinct perspectives of Greeks are prevalent in modern times. From the Renaissance until very recently, there was a prevalent attitude that treated the Greeks with almost religious respect, considering them the inventors of everything great and men of superhuman intellect that the moderns could never aspire to match. The opposite mindset, motivated by scientific advancements and a positive outlook on life, regards the authority of the ancients as a myth and believes that the majority of their intellectual achievements are best left forgotten. Although each of these extreme viewpoints is somewhat correct and partially incorrect, I myself cannot adopt one of them. I'll try to explain what kind of knowledge we may still acquire from studying Greek ideas before getting into any specifics. Many theories can be proposed on the nature and structure of the world. To date, metaphysics has advanced by gradually improving each of these theories, developing their implications, and reformulating each to address criticisms raised by proponents of competing theories. Acquiring the ability to envision the cosmos via each of these frameworks is a creative joy and a countermeasure against rigidity. Furthermore, even if none of the theories can be proven, the process of figuring out how to make them all compatible with known facts and themselves has yielded real knowledge. Now, practically every theory that has dominated modern philosophy originated with the Greeks; their creativity in abstract issues can scarcely be extolled too highly. My remarks regarding the Greeks will primarily be approached from this perspective; I will consider them as the originators of theories that have maintained their own existence and development for over two millennia, despite their initial primitive nature. It is true that the Greeks made another contribution to abstract thought that has proven to be more valuable over time: they invented mathematics and the practice of deductive reasoning. Modern science would not have been conceivable without the Greek innovation of geometry in particular. However, when it comes to mathematics, the Greek genius's bias becomes apparent: instead of reasoning inductively from observations, it reasoned deductively from what seemed obvious. Its astounding achievements in using this technique deceived not only the ancient world but even the majority of the contemporary world. The scientific method, which derives principles inductively from the observation of specific events, has gradually supplanted the Hellenic belief in deduction from bright axioms generated from the philosopher's intellect. Among other reasons, treating the Greeks with superstitious awe is a mistake. The scientific method is generally foreign to their mentality, even if a small number of them were among the first people to have any notion of it. Attempting to elevate them by disparaging the intellectual advancement of the previous four centuries has a stifling impact on contemporary thought. But there is a more general case against veneration, for anybody, not just the Greeks. The proper attitude when studying a philosopher is not one of reverence or contempt, but rather one of hypothetical sympathy until one can understand what it is like to believe in his theories. Only then can one resume the critical attitude, which should, to the greatest extent possible, reflect the mentality of someone giving up beliefs they have previously held. The first step of this process is hampered by contempt, and the second by reverence. It is important to keep in mind two things: first, that no one is likely to have discovered the whole and absolute truth on any given topic, but rather that one may assume that a guy whose views and beliefs are worth examining had some level of intellect. When a knowledgeable someone presents an opinion that appears patently ludicrous to us, rather than attempting to establish its veracity, we ought to investigate the circumstances leading up to its seeming truth. This historical and psychological imagining exercise broadens our perspective while also making us aware of how ridiculous many of our own deeply held prejudices would appear to a younger generation with different mentalities. There was another, lesser-known philosopher named Xenophanes who lived between Pythagoras and Heraclitus, the two of whom we will discuss in this chapter. His approximate date is mostly based on the fact that he makes references to Pythagoras and Heraclitus. Although he was born in Ionia, he spent the majority of his life in southern Italy. He thought that earth and water were the materials of all things. Regarding the gods, he was a staunch independent thinker. "All things that bring shame and dishonor to mortals, such as thefts, adulteries, and deceptions against one another, have been attributed to the gods by Homer and Hesiod. People who believe in the existence of gods believe that they are begotten just like them, with voices, forms, clothes, and so on. However, if lions, horses, or oxen had hands and could paint and create art like humans do, then horses would paint the forms of gods like horses and oxen like oxen, and their bodies would be made in the likeness of their various kinds. He believed in a single God, unlike men in form and thought, who "without toil swayeth all things by the force of his mind." Xenophanes ridiculed the Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration, saying that "once, they say, he (Pythagoras) was passing by when a dog was being ill-treated." The Ethiopians depict their gods as black and snub-nosed, while the Thracians claim their gods have blue eyes and red hair. "Stop, don't hit it," the person said. It is a friend's soul! He felt that it was difficult to determine the truth in questions of religion, but I recognized it when I heard its voice. The unquestionable fact is that no one knows anything about the gods or anything I've mentioned here, nor will they ever know. Yes, even if a man were to happen to say something exactly correct, he would still not know it for himself—guessing is the only option." * Xenophanes fits into the line of rationalists who opposed Pythagoras and other mystical thinkers, but he is not at the top of the list of independent thinkers. As we have shown, Pythagoras's philosophy is extremely difficult to separate from that of his followers. Despite Pythagoras's early age, his school's significance is mostly due to the work of later thinkers. The earliest of them, Heraclitus, lived in 500 B.C., and is credited with developing a theory that is still in use today. Very little is known about his life, other than the fact that he was an aristocratic Ephesian citizen. As we shall see, his philosophy encompasses more than just the idea that everything is always changing, which made him most renowned in antiquity. Despite being an Ionian, Heraclitus did not follow the Milesian tradition of science. * He was a mystic, but not in the traditional sense. According to him, fire is the essential ingredient; everything originates from the death of something else, much as flame in a fire. The universe is united, but it is a unity made of opposites: "Mortals are immortals, and immortals are mortals, the one living the other's death and dying the other's life." The adage "All things come from the one, and the one out of all things" is true, yet God is the one who is more real than the many. His works that have survived do not seem to portray him as a likeable person. He was the antithesis of a democrat and heavily dependent on disdain. He speaks poorly of all of his distinguished forebears, with one exception: "The Ephesians would do well to hang themselves, every grown man of them, and leave the city to beardless lads; for they have cast out Hermodorus, the best man among them, saying: 'We will have none who is best among us; if there is such a one, let him be so elsewhere and among others.'" Teutamus is singled out as "of more account than the rest," and when we ask why, we find that Teutamus said, "most men are bad." His contempt for mankind leads him to believe that only force will compel them to act for their own good. "Homer should be turned out of the lists and whipped." "Of all whose discourses I have heard, there is not one who attains to understanding that wisdom is apart from all." "The learning of many things teacheth not understanding, else would it have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hecataeus." "Pythagoras … claimed for his own wisdom what was but a knowledge of many things and an art of mischief." Heraclitus, as could be anticipated, believes in battle. He states: "Every beast is driven to the pasture with blows" and once more: "Asses would rather have straw than gold." Again, "Homer was wrong to say: 'Would that strife might perish from among gods and men!'" War asserts that it is the father of all and the ruler of all. He has created gods and men, bound and free.His ethic is a kind of proud asceticism, very similar to Nietzsche's: "We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away through strife." He did not realize that he was praying for the destruction of the universe because, if his prayer were heard, all things would pass away. He sees fire and water as making up the soul, with the fire being noble and the water being ignoble. "It is pleasure to souls to become moist." "A man, when he gets drunk, is led by a beardless lad, tripping, knowing not where he steps, having his soul moist." "It is death to souls to become water." "The soul that has the most fire he calls "dry." "The dry soul is the wisest and best." "It is hard to fight with one's heart's desire." The statement "It is not good for men to get all that they wish to get" and "Whatever it wishes to get, it purchases at the cost of soul" suggest that Heraclitus appreciates strength acquired through self-mastery and despises the impulses that divert men from their main goals. Heraclitus was generally antagonistic toward the faiths of his day, or the Bacchic religion at any rate, but not in the way that a rationalist from science would be. He practices his own religion, and while he sometimes scornfully rejects it, he also sometimes interprets modern theology to support his beliefs. Pfleiderer has referred to him as an interpreter of the secrets, while Cornford has dubbed him Bacchic. The pertinent portions, in my opinion, do not support this theory. For instance, when he states, "The mysteries practised among men are unholy mysteries," it is probable that he had in mind mysteries that were not "unholy," but rather would be very different from those that were already in existence. If he hadn't been too contemptuous of the vulgar to participate in propaganda, he would have become a religious reformer. The quotes from Heraclitus that are still in existence that discuss his thoughts on the theology of his day are included below. The Lord, who is the Delphic oracle, reveals his message by a sign rather than by speaking or by hiding it. And owing to the deity within her, the Sibyl can stretch across a thousand years with her voice, her raging lips spewing things mirthless, undidden, and unperfumed. In Hades, souls smell. bigger parts are won by bigger fatalities. Nightwalkers, magicians, priests of Bacchus and priestesses of the wine vat, mystery-mongers (those who die then become gods). The mysteries that are performed by men are not sacred secrets. They offer prayers to these pictures without understanding what gods or heroes are, as though they were conversing with a man's dwelling. They would be acting most shamelessly if they hadn't formed a parade and sang the repugnant phallic hymn in honor of Dionysus. However, Hades is identical to Dionysus, in honor of whom they celebrate the wine vat festival and go insane. They defile themselves with blood in vain, purporting to purify themselves, as though someone who had trodden in dirt would wash his feet in it. If a guy caught him doing this, he would be declared insane. According to Heraclitus, fire was the first element from which all other elements originated. As the reader will recall, Thales believed that everything was composed of water, Anaximenes believed that air was the first element, and Heraclitus favored fire. Empedocles finally proposed a statesman-like compromise by recognizing the elements earth, air, fire, and water as four. At this moment, the ancients' chemistry completely halted. Until the Mohammedan alchemists began their quest for the philosopher's stone, the elixir of life, and a way to turn base metals into gold, no more advancements in this field were made. Heraclitus's metaphysics is dynamic enough to satisfy even the most demanding moderns: "No god or man has made this world, which is the same for all; but it was ever, is now, and shall be an everliving Fire, with measures going out and kindling.” "The transformations of Fire are, first of all, sea; and half of the sea is earth, half whirlwind.” Perpetual change was expected in such a world, and Heraclitus believed in perpetual change. But he also believed in a different doctrine—the blending of opposites—which he valued much more than the idea of everlasting change. He claims that "men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself." His belief in conflict is related to this idea because conflict is a result of opposites coming together to create a motion that is harmonious. It is an attunement of contrary tensions, similar to that of the bow and the lyre. Couples are things whole and things not whole, what is pulled together and what is drawn apart, the harmonic and the discordant. There is unity in the world, but it is a unity born of difference. The doctrine "it is the opposite which is good for us" contains the kernel of Hegel's philosophy, which proceeds by a synthesis of opposites. The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one. At times, he speaks as though the unity were more fundamental than the diversity, saying things like "Good and ill are one," "To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things wrong and some right," "The way up and the way down is one and the same," and "God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger." Nevertheless, there would be no unity if there were not opposites to combine, "it is the opposite which is good for us." Similar to Anaximander, Heraclitus's metaphysics is centered on the idea of cosmic justice, which keeps opposites from ever fully triumphing over one another. "Fire lives the death of air, and air lives the death of fire; water lives the death of earth, and earth that of water." "We must know that war is common to all, and strife is justice." Heraclitus refers to "God" as distinct from "the gods" multiple times. "The way of man has no wisdom, but that of God has," he says. "All things are an exchange for Fire, and Fire for all things, even as wares for gold and gold for wares." Even in his childhood, God refers to man as a baby. Without a question, God is the personification of cosmic justice. "The wisest man is an ape compared to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man." According to Plato's Theaetetus, the most well-known and highly valued belief held by Heraclitus and his followers is that everything is always changing. Like with Washington's "Father, I cannot tell a lie" and Wellington's "Up Guards and at 'em," his belief in universal change is said to have been expressed in the quotation "you cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you" and "the sun is new every day." Like all the philosophers before Plato, his works are only known through quotations, most of which were made by Plato or Aristotle for the purpose of refutation. It is easy to understand how magnificent the preSocratics must have been, since even through the mist of malice spread by their adversaries, they still look great. Just imagine what would happen of any current philosopher if he was only known via the polemics of his competitors. Whatever the case, Heraclitus imparted the ideas that "nothing steadfastly is" (Aristotle) and "nothing ever is, everything is becoming" (Plato). I will revisit the discussion of this theory in relation to Plato, who is eager to disprove it. I will simply look at what poets have felt and scientists have taught about it for the time being, rather than what philosophy has to say about it. One of the most fundamental motives that drives mankind to philosophy is the need for something eternal. It is undoubtedly generated from a love of one's home and a need for safety; as a result, we discover that those whose lives are most at risk for disaster tend to have the strongest examples of it. God and immortality are the two types of permanence that religion seeks. There is no variation or hint of turning in God; even after death, existence is everlasting and constant. The optimism of the nineteenth century led many to reject these immobile ideas, and contemporary liberal theology holds that the Godhead is evolving and that there is development in heaven. However, development itself and its ultimate objective are constant elements even in this perspective. Furthermore, a dosage of catastrophe is likely to return men's hopes to their more primitive extraterrestrial forms, according to which serenity can only be found in heaven if life on Earth is despaired of. Poets have bemoaned Time's ability to take away all they have loved. Time cuts through the radiance of youth, explores the brow's parallelism, feeds on the rarities of nature's truth, and leaves nothing in its wake but the need for his scythe to mow. It is customary for them to state that their own poetry is unbreakable, saying things like, "And yet sometimes I hope my verse will stand, praising thy worth, despite his cruel hand." However, this is only a common literary device. Philosophically minded mystics have created a vision of eternity that is not persistence across unlimited time, but life outside the entire chronological process, unable to deny that everything is in time is transient. Some theologians, like Dean Inge, define eternal life as a form of being totally independent of time, in which there is no before or after and, hence, no logical possibility of change. They do not, however, mean presence throughout every second of future time. I saw Eternity the other night, like a great ring of pure and endless light, all calm, as it was bright; and round beneath it, Time in hours, days, and years, driven by the spheres Like a vast shadow moved, in which the world and all her train were hurled. Vaughan has poetically expressed this view. This idea has been attempted to be expressed in sober writing by a number of the most well-known philosophical schools, who attempt to convey what reason, when pursued with patience, will eventually lead us to believe. Despite his belief in change, Heraclitus himself permitted anything to endure forever. Heraclitus does not hold the Parmenidesan conception of eternity (as opposed to endless duration), but his philosophy holds that the world "was ever, is now, and ever shall be, an everliving Fire." However, fire is a constantly changing entity, and its permanence is more akin to that of a process than a substance, so this viewpoint should not be attributed to Heraclitus. Similar to philosophy, science has attempted to discover a stable foundation amidst ever-changing phenomena in order to break free from the idea of unending change. This urge seemed to be satiated by chemistry. It was discovered that fire, which on the surface seems to destroy, actually simply transmutes: when combustion is finished, all of the atoms that existed before combustion are still present. As a result, it was believed that atoms are unbreakable and that all physical change is limited to the rearranging of permanent components. This theory was in use until radioactivity was discovered, which revealed that atoms could break apart. Undaunted, the scientists created new, smaller units called protons and electrons, which are the building blocks of atoms. For a short while, these units were thought to possess the indestructibility that atoms were previously thought to possess. Regretfully, it appeared as though protons and electrons may collide and burst, creating a wave of energy that would travel the speed of light throughout the cosmos instead of new matter. Matter has to give way to energy as the ultimate substance. But unlike matter, energy is only a feature of physical processes rather than an improvement upon the ordinary understanding of a "thing." It is not what burns, but rather the burning, which is why it is fancifully associated with the Heraclitean Fire. "What burns" has vanished from contemporary physics. From the little to the huge, astronomy makes it impossible for humans to think of the celestial bodies as eternal. The sun sprang from a nebula, and the planets emerged from it. It has been there for a while and will continue to be there for a while more, but eventually it will blow up, killing all the planets and returning to their former state as a widely dispersed gas, most likely after a million million years. That is what the astronomers say, at least; maybe when the day of death approaches, they will discover an error in their calculations. Heraclitus taught the terrible theory of perpetual flux, which science has shown incapable of disproving. Reviving aspirations that science seemed to have slain has been one of philosophers' primary goals. As a result, philosophers have been relentless in their search for anything outside of Time's kingdom. Let's start our quest with Parmenides.