Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία

1. Introduction

Heraclitus was a naturalist philosopher from Ephesus, son of Bloson. He was born at some point between 544 and 541 BC, and his floruit is dated to the late 6^th century BC (504-501 BC).¹ The date of his death remains unknown, unlike the alleged cause of his death. In the last years of his life he is said to have retired to the mountains, where he survived on a strict diet of plants and herbs. As a result he suffered from oedema. In his attempt to cure himself he dipped himself into cow-manure or laid under the sun and asked that manure was used on him as liniment, and as a result he perished quickly.²

This unusual way of dying was perhaps thought up to reflect Heraclitus’ peculiar personality. He was one of the most infamous misanthropes of the ancient world, but also a melancholic and arrogant man, who preferred to play with children rather than socialise with his adult fellow citizens.³ It has also been convincingly argued that the stories around his death reflect in part his teachings and certain Zoroastrian burial customs. Moreover, Heraclitus lived in the Persian-occupied city of Ephesus when Zoroastrianism became the official religion of the empire under Darius I.⁴

Of his work (On Nature) and teachings only 130 fragments in prose survive, written in a laconic and aphoristic style. This work would have probably been rather concise. We are not even sure whether it was a continuous flowing text or the result of aphorism strung together.⁵ The numerous scholarly attempts to reconstruct his teaching in fact represent different rearrangements of the order in which the surviving fragments are treated.⁶

2. Activities - teaching

The information pertaining to Heraclitus’ aristocratic descent is considered historically accurate. He was born to an important Ephesian family. This perhaps explains several features of his life and character. Combined with his loathing of political life, it explains the anachronistic information that he convinced the tyrant Melancoma to abandon power.⁷ It also explains the doxographical tradition and his aphorisms that indicate that he had little respect for inclusive decision-making and popular opinion.⁸ Heraclitus, however, also challenged the authority of Homer, Hesiod, Archilochus, Hecataeus, Pythagoras, and Xenophanes, questioned the value of the great epics and historical narratives of the past and rejected the view that the words of the philosophers can be mined to extract knowledge.⁹

Perhaps, lastly, his family background and his aristocratic views shed some light on his expressive choices. His style and language differ from that of his contemporary philosophers. He has a completely personal style, intentionally ambiguous and cryptic, often obscure, warranting the epithet ‘the dark’ that was often attributed to him. His rhythmic and full of rhetorical figures (e.g. alliterations, antitheses) aphorisms are certainly not targeted to the majority.¹⁰

Heraclitus’ views in cosmology, gnosiology, psychology, theology, and ethics are closely interrelated. The arche (=beginning or first principle) of the world (this is the first philosophical usage of the term) is fire, the most elevated and purest form of matter. It undergoes a series of changes that are determined by causality (fate) – through these changes the world acquires structure and its unity and order are secured. The world is subject to periodical ekpyroseis (=combustions), during which it is not destroyed but wanes to be reborn, as decay and birth form a continuum in the thought of Heraclitus.¹¹ To understand this process we need the concepts of conflict, strife which is defined by the unity of the opposites and that of eternal flux.¹²

Strife is the source of creation and not destruction, like in combustions, for “War is the father of all things”, “strife is justice” and “all things come into being through strife necessarily”.¹³ This is so because when one examines the whole and attempts to understand it, realizes that contrasts are only superficial. These are either the different characteristics of the one and same thing or divergent conclusions of the various observers.¹⁴ The world is a synthesis of opposites, as indicated by the binary images of the bow and the lyre. Here, the opposite forces that emerge during the simultaneous and alternating hoist and abatement (of chords and support points), in accordance with the “attunement of opposites”, create a harmonic whole.

During Antiquity, authoritative sources (like Plato and Aristotle)¹⁵ attributed to Heraclitus a theory of the eternal flux of all things (“everything is in a state of flux” and “all beings going and remaining not at all”).¹⁶ Modern scholarship has expressed serious reservations on whether Heraclitus ever subscribed to this theory.¹⁷

The power that organizes the universe, of which fire is its material expression, is the logos. It is notoriously difficult to define this term. This is because Heraclitus employs and presumes almost all of the term’s earlier meanings in ancient Greek (e.g. expression, language, ratio, assertion, rendering account). Logos permeates everything and thus structures, coheres and rules the universe, without, however, being its first principle, in the materialistic and monistic approach of Presocratic philosophy. Logos is to be distinguished from the simple opinion, which all men have. Although, however, the truth and logos of the world are hidden to the many and ignorant, and as a result it is especially difficult to grasp them (this process is a personal affair), they are not wholly beyond reach. Heraclitus trusts the input of the senses as a dependable guide in understanding and gaining knowledge about the world, as long as it is preceded by introspection and the formation of a phenomenology of our own internal experience. The logos of the world, man’s aim and criterion, becomes gradually revealed through the careful and constant grasping of the logos within us and in the world that surrounds us. This understanding should involve the unity of the opposites and the flux. Bearing these in mind, anyone can grasp the logos and here Heraclitus seems to shed his reputation as an arrogant and anti-democratic thinker. The philosopher’s duty is to awaken man’s ability to understand logos, an ability that remains dormant in the lulling habits of everyday life.¹⁸

Fire, the eternal and logical principle, is identified with the divine; the divine is wise, containing and unifying as well the opposites and Heraclitus’ conception of it does not subscribe to the anthropomorphism of ancient Greek theology: “God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger... but he takes various shapes, just as fire...”.¹⁹ Heraclitus does not reject traditional religious practices. Moreover he considers them expressions of logos. He does reject, however, the interpretations various people, specialists and others give to them.²⁰

In his psychological views, Heraclitus believes that everything has a soul, and this soul is identified with the fire of the universe (that is why it requires dryness). Thus man, through his ‘fiery’ soul, partakes of the logos of the universe.²¹ In his ethics, it appears that the laws of the world possess a dominant place (necessity, unity of opposites, flux, moderation), above those made by humans.²²

3. Assessment

Although a naturalist philosopher, Heraclitus is unique in not having solely delved into the arche, the principle that creates and can be used to explain the changes of the universe, but sought to discover the essence and limits of human understanding of the natural world. If we also consider his trust in human senses as sources of knowledge, his distinctive style, the flux and unity of the opposites, we shall see him as a unique thinker who greatly influenced later philosophical developments, ancient and modern. Flux and change dominate the cosmology of Plato’s Theaetetus, while logos is the principle that governs the universe in Stoic cosmology.²³

1. Diog. Laert. 9.1 ( = Α1 DK). Diogenes and the Suda mention the names Heracon and Bautor for his father (Α1 and Ala DK).

2. Α1.3-4 & Ala DK. On the contrary others argued he was healed of his oedema and died of some other, unknown condition. See Α1.5 DK.

3. Misanthrope: Α1.3 DK & Moyal, J.D., "On Heraclitus' misanthropy," RPhA 7 (1989), pp. 131-148. The image of the philosopher playing knuckle-bones with the children is probably a visualization of his famous, perhaps Orphic in origin, phrase: “Time is a child playing draughts, the kingly power is a child's” (Β52 DK). Arrogant and haughty: Α1.1 DK. Display and haughty style, appear to feature in many anecdotal descriptions of the early philosophers, the public image and life of who diverge significantly from the norm. See for instance Frede, Μ., “Η εικόνα του φιλοσόφου στην αρχαιότητα”, Neusis 7 (1998) pp. 3-40. On the antipode of this image, Heraclitus is attributed with characterizing egotism as ‘holy disease’ (fragm. Β46 DΚ) and the aphorism that “Wantonness needs putting out, even more than a house in fire” (Α1.2 DK). According to Theophrastus he was depressive, and he argues also that for this reason Heraclitus left some works of his unfinished or fell into contradictions, Α1.6 DK.

4. Heraclitus and Zoroastrianism: Cleve, F.M., The Giants of' Pre-sophistic Greek Philosophy. An Attempt to Reconstruct their Thoughts³ (The Hague 1973), p. 33ff. Some of his teachings have found their way into the descriptions pertaining to the philosopher's death (see fragments Β36, 96-97, 118,126,136 DK): Fairweather, J., "The death of Heraclitus," GRBS 14 (1973), pp. 233-239. On Heraclitus' death see also Chitwood, Α., Death by Philosophy (Ann Arbor 2004), pp. 59-93.

5. Life and works: Α1.5-6,12 DK. Αξελός, Κ., Ο Ηράκλειτος και η φιλοσοφία, Δημητριάδης, Δ. (trans.) (Athens 1974), pp. 27-49; Gemelli-Marciano, M.L. (ed.), Die Vorsokratiker. Vol. I (Düsseldorf 2007), pp. 330-344; Mouraviev, S. (ed.), Heraclitea. III.1. Recensio: Memoria. Testimonia de Vita, Morte ac Scripto (Sankt Augustin 2004); Ρούσσος, Ε.Ν., Προσωκρατικοί. Τόμος Β': Ηράκλειτος. Ιστορική εισαγωγή, κείμενο, μετάφραση, ερμηνευτικά σχόλια (Βιβλιοθήκη Αρχαίων Συγγραφέων 23, Αthens 2000), pp. 28-30. The Derveni papyrus, where only Heraclitus and Orpheus are mentioned by name, is the earliest source on his teachings. Column 4 of the scrolls refers to fragments Β3 and Β94 DK. See Betegh, G., The Derveni papyrus. Cosmology, Theology and Interpretation (Cambridge 2004), pp. 325-348.

6. The attempts of Cleve, F.M., The Giants of Pre-sophistic Greek Philosophy. An Attempt to Reconstruct their Thoughts ³(The Hague 1973); Jones, B., "Philosophic fire: unifying the fragments of Heraclitus," Prudentia 28 (1996), pp. 1-24; Ρούσσος, Ε.Ν., Προσωκρατικοί. Τόμος Β': Ηράκλειτος. Ιστορική εισαγωγή, κείμενο, μετάφραση, ερμηνευτικά σχόλια (Βιβλιοθήκη Αρχαίων Συγγραφέων 23, Αθήνα 2000) are indicative of the rearrangements. See the relevant bibliography in Poster, C, "The Task of the Bow. Heraclitus' Rhetorical Critique of Epic Language," Philosophy and Rhetoric 39.1 (2006), p. 3, note 8.

7. Α1.2,3 DK.

8. Fragments Β2,17, 27-29, 47, 56, 70, 74, 86, 104, 110, 121 DK; Kessidis, Th., "The socio-political views of Heraclitus of Ephesus," Φιλοσοφία 13-14 (1983-1984), pp. 92-106. He stressed, however, the need to abide to and defend civic laws, fragments Α1.2, Β44,114 DK.

9. Α1.1, Β40-42 DK; Granger, Η., "Heraclitus' Quarrel with Polymathy and Historiê," TAPhA 134 (2004), pp. 235-261.

10. Aristotle in his Rhetorica 1407b11ff. (=Α4 DK) poignantly describes the difficulties with Heraclitus' locution. Dark and enigmatic: A3 DK and Diog. Laert. 9.6. His prose features many poetic elements. See Most, G.W., "The poetics of early Greek philosophy," in Long, A.A. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy (Cambridge 1999), pp. 337-339. For the rhetorical figures of his aphorisms see indicatively Β5, 10, 21, 48, 59-61, 103, 114 DK. For his style see Ρούσσος, Ε.Ν., Προσωκρατικοί. Τόμος Β': Ηράκλειτος. Ιστορική εισαγωγή, κείμενο, μετάφραση, ερμηνευτικά σχόλια (Βιβλιοθήκη Αρχαίων Συγγραφέων 23, Αθήνα 2000), pp. 30-31. Heraclitus predates the appearance of the art of correct diction (the study of the proper use of words, based on their etymology) which was later pursued by Prodicus and Protagoras. See for instance Β48 DK and Poster, C, "The Task of the Bow. Heraclitus' Rhetorical Critique of Epic Language," Philosophy and Rhetoric 39.1 (2006), pp. 15-16.

11. A1.7-10a, B5, 30-31, 90 DK. See also Arist., Metaph. 984a7-8, Cael. 298b25-33; Diog. Laert. 9.8; Αξελός, Κ., Ο Ηράκλειτος και η φιλοσοφία, Δημητριάδης, Δ. (trans.) (Αθήνα 1974), pp. 111-171; Cleve, F.M., The Giants of Pre-sophistic Greek Philosophy. An Attempt to Reconstruct their Thoughts³ (The Hague 1973), pp. 39-41, 47-51; Dilcher, R., Studies in Heraclitus (Hildesheim 1995), pp. 53-66; Finkelberg, Α., "On Cosmogony and Ecpyrosis in Heraclitus," AJPh 119 (1998), pp. 195-222; Graham, D.W., "Heraclitus' Criticism of Ionian Philosophy," OSAPh 15 (1997), pp. 40-42.

12. Synthesis of opposites: Α10, Β51, 57, 88-89,126 DK; Arist., Top. 159b30-32, EE 1235a25-28. Strife: Α22, Β53 DK.

13. Β53, 80 DK. For the main binary pairs in Heraclitus’ aphorisms: Ρούσσος, Ε.Ν., Προσωκρατικοί. Τόμος Β': Ηράκλειτος. Ιστορική εισαγωγή, κείμενο, μετάφραση, ερμηνευτικά σχόλια (Βιβλιοθήκη Αρχαίων Συγγραφέων 23, Αθήνα 2000), pp. 136-137.

14. E.g. Β48, 59-61, 83 DK.

15. Pl., Cra. 401d, 402a, Tht. 152d-e, 160d, 179d-e; Arist., Metaph. 987a32-34, Cae. 298b25-33, Top. 104b21-22.

16. Α1.8 (Diogenes Laertius) & Α6 (Plato) DK.

17. Barnes, J., The Presocratic philosophers. Volume I: Thales to Zeno (London 1979), pp. 65-69; Finkelberg, Α., "On Cosmogony and Ecpyrosis in Heraclitus," AJPh 119 (1998), pp. 195-222; Graham, D.W., "Heraclitus' Criticism of Ionian Philosophy," OSAPh 15 (1997), pp. 7-12; Wiggins, D., "Heraclitus' conceptions of flux, fire and material persistence," in Schofield, M. - Nussbaum, M.C. (ed.), Language and Logos. Studies in ancient Greek philosophy presented to G.E.L. Owen (Cambridge 1982).

18. A16, Bl-2,17, 28, 50-51, 54-56, 72, 101a, 107, 113, 116, 119, 123 DK; Αξελός, Κ., Ο Ηράκλειτος και η φιλοσοφία, Δημητριάδης, Δ. (trans.) (Αθήνα 1974), pp. 53-107; Benardete, S., "On Heraclitus," RMeta 53 (1999-2000), pp. 613-633; Cleve, F.M., The Giants of Pre-sophistic Greek Philosophy. An Attempt to Reconstruct their Thoughts³ (The Hague 1973), pp. 41-45, 76-113; Dilcher, R., Studies in Heraclitus Hildesheim 1995), pp. 27-52; Hussey, E., "Epistemology and meaning in Heraclitus," in Schofield M. - Nussbaum, M.C. (ed.), Language and Logos. Studies in ancient Greek philosophy presented to G.E.L. Owen (Cambridge 1982); Robinson, T.M., "Esisteuna dottrina del logos in Eraclito?," in Rossetti, L. (ed.), Atti del Symposium Heracliteum 1981. Vol. I: Studi (Roma 1983), pp. 65-72.

19. B67 DK. See also Β32,40 DK; Dilcher, R., Studies in Heraclitus (Hildesheim 1995), pp. 145-157; Drozdek, Α., "Heraclitus' Theology," CM 52 (2001), pp. 37-56.

20. Adomenas, M., 'Heraclitus on Religion', Phronesis 44 (1999), pp. 87-113.

21. Α1.7,1.17-18, Β36, 45,118.

22. Β 94,119 DK.

23. Influence in antiquity: Cleve, F.M., The Giants of Pre-sophistic Greek Philosophy. An Attempt to Reconstruct their Thoughts³ (The Hague 1973), pp. 118-129; Ρούσσος, Ε.Ν., Προσωκρατικοί. Τόμος Β': Ηράκλειτος. Ιστορική εισαγωγή, κείμενο, μετάφραση, ερμηνευτικά σχόλια (Βιβλιοθήκη Αρχαίων Συγγραφέων 23, Αθήνα 2000), pp. 41-47. For his influence on modern thought: Αξελός, Κ., Ο Ηράκλειτος και η φιλοσοφία, Δημητριάδης, Δ. (trans.) (Αθήνα 1974) pp. 277-305; Rossetti, L. (ed.) Atti del Symposium Heracliteum 1981. Vol. II: La 'fortuna' di Eraclito nel pensiero moderno (Roma 1984).