Heraclitus (540
BCE - 480 BCE) is certainly the most important and influential pre-Socratic
philosopher. His significance is undisputable even though all we have of his
work is a few more than a hundred sentences. This relative scarcity and
fragmentation of material in no way consigns his thoughts to a mere collection
of unconnected and tangent ideas. Heraclitus’ philosophy has a clear essence
and focus. That ‘everything is flux’, that ‘all things are one’, and the
‘unification of opposites’, are the fundamental and lasting ideas of
Heraclitus, as well as the very heart of his philosophy of dynamic equilibrium.
Heraclitus argued that there was an objective truth about everything, an
underlying current flowing across a time, and on to the next one. This
constancy he called Logos, which was not a personal subjective thought of his,
rather, he thought of himself as merely conduit of it. Logos, for Heraclitus,
was the world’s rationale, its determining formula, the truth, and thus the key
to everythings nature. Logos, as such, was accessible because it was within
everything, even that derogatorily called ‘common’ or ‘public’. The gap between
realizing Logos and raveling in the banality of opinions was not a matter of
something other, but of a different perspective on the same ‘common’ reality.
Heraclitus, therefore, was understandably opposed to the naïve empiricism of
his time, and pleaded that men come to discover the ‘depth of the soul’s own
logos’. The obscurity and ambiguity of Heraclitus’ style is widely acknowledged
as intentional, that is, it is believed that Heraclitus’ style was intended to
provoke his audience to discover the logos in and by themselves.
What the exact topic of Heraclitus’ philosophy is, is a question debated
since his contemporaries, and a question which has seemingly found no decision
to this day. Claims range from saying that he was a moralist, a psychologist,
an ontologist, a critic of society, cosmologist, or that his philosophy
concerned itself with everything from the universe to theology to politics.
The central idea of Heraclitus’ thought is undoubtedly the unity of
opposites. Moreover, Heraclitus claimed that all things are one. This ‘unity of
all things’ is based on the fact that there is a common formula, i.e. logos,
which is at work in everything to which we attribute temporal and spatial
identity and continuity. Heraclitus should not be misunderstood as denying the
phenomenal difference between day and night, hot and cold, up and down, and
even death and life, rather, his claim is that each opposite is inseparable
from its other, and that they depend on one another for their own identity. In
other words, if one of the pair is removed the other immediately disappears.
Heraclitus’ famous phrase that ‘you can’t step in the same river twice’
should be understood as the claim that things which seem to have a stable
identity, in fact depend upon a continual interchange or succession of their
constitutive parts, or outright antagonistic forces, for their identity. The
statement that ‘all things are one’, has two particular consequences: first,
from a divine perspective, the contrary evaluations accorded to sets of
opposites are transcended, and second, that human discrimination between pairs
of opposites are ultimately arbitrary. The first of these consequences was
certainly endorsed by Heraclitus, the second however, was held only with qualification,
namely, that the point is that humans must adjust those of their views which
are purely subjective, and bring them into accord with the objective truth of
the way things are. In short, people must come to realize the dynamic interplay
of opposing forces as the essence of all things, both natural and cultural.
Moreover, conflicting forces as the structure of the world, and our awareness
of them as constitutive of all things, is essential to both order and balance.
Although Heraclitus, as judging from the fragments, did not focus on
cosmology, many of his ancient interprets, including Aristotle, claimed that
this was his main focus. The basis for such a reading of Heraclitus is in
virtue of his repeated reference to fire, for example All things are an
exchange for fire, and fire for all things, as goods for gold and gold for
goods’, or ‘ever-living fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures’.
In short, Heraclitus continually refers to an ‘ever-living fire’ which is not
only transformative of all else, but functions almost like a universal
currency. From such pronouncements, interpreters have induced that Heraclitus
proposed the following doctrines: that fire is the underlying principle of
everything, i.e. all things; or, that the world as a whole is a endlessly
repeating process of temporal cycles, all of which begin from and end in fire;
or, that particular phenomena are both constituted by and determined into fire
by condensation or rarefaction. Regardless of which of these, if any, are correct
inductions of Heraclitus’ thought, it is next to impossible to deny that fire
held the dominant position in Heraclitus’ thought, as the primary principle or
element, or the most explanatory phenomenon. Fire, for Heraclitus is not only
the most dynamic element, but also the most self-regulating one. It consumes
all the material surrounding it, and by consuming it, it also changes it. As
such we can say that fire lives by destroying another, or that it destroys
itself in creating something else. Fire, as such, is therefore more than a
river the most emblematic example of both ‘all things are one’ and ‘everything
is in flux’, but also perhaps of logos and the ‘unity of opposites’.
The question which often arises regarding Heraclitus is whether he
identified fire with the god he occasionally referred to, and moreover, whether
either or both of these were material manifestations of Logos. The Stoics
believed that Heraclitus both identified fire with god, and saw them as
manifestations of logos. Consequently, we can think of Heraclitus as perhaps
the first to think the universe as an automatic field of counterbalancing
forces, and yet still affirm the existence of some teleology.
Prior to Socrates and Plato, Heraclitus proposed that cultivation of the
psyche was the prerequisite for the good life; where psyche is understood as
not merely as the life of human being, but as signifying mind and intelligence.
To live authentically, Heraclitus taught, one must interpret empirical
phenomena correctly, namely, as an expression of logos. Moreover, the full use
of the psyche’s capacity involved that one also ‘inquires into oneself’.
Therefore, for Heraclitus there was an inside-outside relationship between
logos and psyche, that is, there was an intimate relationship of identity
between the formula of nature’s processes and the mind’s thinking through and
understanding that formula.
Heraclitus forges a relation between these two manifestations of logos,
by referring to fire in his comments on the psyche. While fire and dryness are
related to life, excellence and intelligence, death and drunkenness are related
to water and moisture, as he states: it is ‘death for souls to be come water’,
while a drunk ‘has a soul that is moist’. He, therefore, again arrives at the
conclusion that fire is most the constitutive of nature and understanding. The
vitality of life, moreover, is also drawn from the ever-living fire, and a soul
of fire contributes not mere life to humanity, but ‘light and intelligence’.
Heraclitus’ aim is, as mentioned before, to awaken drunken souls and
entice them to rethink their beliefs about religion, society, death and life.
He also makes a firm distinction between those who seek and attain immortal
fame, and those who revel in mindless satisfactions. Heraclitus also stresses
man general inability to come to terms with his own mortality, that is, with
death. In accordance with these diagnoses, Heraclitus prescribes the
realization that men are intelligent but mortal instances of the cosmic life of
ever-lasting and ever-changing fire. The influence of Heraclitus’ though is
rather extensive, especially in, but not restricted to, the ancient world. His
influence is felt in Parmenides, Cratylus, Plato, Aristotle, and even the
Stoics. In more recent times, perhaps the greatest influence of Heraclitus can
be found in the Young Hegelians of the 19th century.
No comments:
Post a Comment