Anaximander and Others
Western Philosophy 1
Modules 4- Heraclitus
Gerlie C. Ogatis- PUP Manila
In the last lecture, we said a crisis was developed, the fundamental concern
was a quest for being.
All of reality is in the process of becoming, but the arche must be stable, it
endures as it is responsible or in charge of the rest of reality
The crisis occurs because of the difficulty in explaining the possible integration
of being and becoming
One way of solving this problem is through Heraclitus from Ephesus 540 to
470 BC
He solved this crisis with one dramatic stroke, he eliminated being from the
equation. If being is out, then we no longer have a problem of integrating being
and becoming. For him , there is only becoming, there is only the flux or the
flow of becoming, there is no being whatsoever.
Start with his famous saying, “it is not possible to step
twice into the same river”, often formulated as “you cannot
step into the same river twice”. This is how Heraclitus
philosophize, short and aphoristic (not so clear). Aphorism
is a short saying that provokes thoughts.
The river stands for becoming, it stands for reality itself- we
can’t step into the river twice because obviously, the water
is ever flowing on our feet.
Conceptual problem: if nothing is stable, how in the world will it be
possible to give a logos (in our previous lecture, we distinguish
philosophy from mythology, and we said that the philosopher needs
to give a logos or account of reality). If nothing is stable, how could
it be possible to give a logos, if nothing is stable what would there
be to articulate rationally, what would there be to explain?
“This logos holds always, but humans are unable to understand it”-
Heraclitus. He maintains that there is a rational account of reality,
even though reality is in the process of becoming.
What sort of logos could this possibly be?= Heraclitus is deeply
puzzling ,he writes very short fragments but powerful ones.
“The world up and the world down are one and the same. The same
thing is both living and dead. Changing, it rests.”
Heraclitus is taking opposites. He contradicts himself. A contradiction
is saying that some S is both P and not P. (I am a human being and I
am not a human being)
Contradictions to philosophy are ultimate irrationalities. It is
nonsense.
Aphoristic (not so clear). Aphorism, a short saying that provokes
thoughts.
Let’s assume that he is right, that nothing is stable, nothing endures, everything flows. If the world
is in flux, then everything in the world is in the process of moving from “P to not P (P.~P”.
River- it is there, but then eventually it is not there
The notion of flux, implies a negation, contradiction is the way to express it. It articulates something
true about the world- “changing it rests”- and for Heraclitues they are meaningful statements.
We step and we do not step into the same river. Yes we do step into the same river, but we also do
not step into the same river, the river is and is not itself.
It seems to be bringing into light the crucial point of relativism- can be best understood in terms of
value
Let’s say stealing is wrong, the relativist might say, stealing is wrong for you, stealing is wrong
relative to you.
The opposite of relativism is absolutism- that a value simply is true or false, good or bad. It is
objective, it does not depend on any value
For the relativist, values always depend on the person who holds the value.
Heraclitus- You can’t step into the same river twice, everything is in the state of
flux- if nothing is permanent, then nothing is absolute. Value is always in the
state of flux- Heraclitus is giving prominence to relativism.
Example: If the water in the sea is polluted- to fishes it is drinkable, but to
humans undrinkable. Pigs would take water that is not clear (mud), what he is
trying to articulate here is the sense of relativism
For a pig, mud has value, for human beings mud has little value. There is no
being, nothing is absolutely valuable in and out itself.
Heraclitus= his writings has two themes:
1. Contradiction 2. Relativist
It seems he is radically anti-Miletian- he wanted to discard the element of
being and just focus on becoming.
Heraclitus is picking fire as the arche- the cosmos is an ever living fire.
There seems to be a unifying principle, which is fire- but then fire has
the capacity to change something or transform something into
something else.
Fire is in motion- it dances, it has unpredictable motion
Niethzsche- he loved Heraclitus- for Nietzsche,he also believed there
is no being- the fundamental fact of reality is change also or flux- he is
teaching people to face up to the flux with courage and honesty- he
was hostile to Christianity because of his crucial disagreement to a
notion of a God above that gives order or coherence of the universe-
this is an escape or cowardice in facing the reality of change.
Heraclitus- that it is not possible to step twice into the same river- and when
he said we step and do not step- I put my foot into the same water, but at
the very moment I put my foot into the river, the river moves by. But the river
always has the same name…
One of the great temptations of thinking that there is stability is backed up
by language i.e. noun. We always call the river that is changing the same
name, but a name is a seduction and misleading. Language is misleading,
that is why Heraclitus wrote in a peculiar fashion.
By writing in a peculiar and aphoristic way, the language itself is in dynamic
fashion, its meaning is moving.
His use of contradiction is a way of making language also not settle in an
illusion of stability.
