DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Continental Philosophy Society
HTML https://continentalphilsociety.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Presocratics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31--------------------------------------------------
Heraclitus Essays ;D
By: pdrsn Date: August 27, 2017, 11:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's post all our Heraclitus essays here. I think this is the
best way to develop our thinking as well as develop the society!
Heraclitus : Bow, Life and Death
FRAGMENTS
“The bow (βιός) is called life
(βίος), but its work is death.” [B 47]
“Immortals are mortals, mortals immortals: living their death,
dying their life.” [B 62] (p52 Barnes)
“For souls it is death to become water, for water death to
become earth; but from earth water comes into being, from water
soul.” [B 36] (p63 Barnes)
“…the death of earth is to become water, and the death of water
to become air, and of air fire, and the reverse.” [B 76] (p65
Barnes)
“Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself. It
is an attunement of opposite tension, like that of the bow and
the lyre.” [B 51]
“All the things we see when awake are death, even as all we see
in slumber are sleep.” [B 21]
QUESTION
Looking at the fragment [B47] mentioning life and death how are
we to understand them? The purpose of a bow and arrow is to
kill, this is simple enough. However Heraclitus goes on to say
that the function of life is death. We must find out what the
words could have meant for Heraclitus, in this way resonance and
density has the potential to steer us away from simplistic or
anachronistic interpretations.
HOW ARE THE WORDS USED?
H. in one sense could be speaking about life in terms of nature
and observing that many lifeforms are born and then cause the
death of other lifeforms.
In another sense we could understand ‘life’ in terms of the
lived human experience and taking Nussbaum’s interpretation of
[B62], [B47] could be taken as: that which makes life is the
fact of mortality (death), that is, just as a bow must be able
to kill to be considered a good bow then so too life must
include death to be considered a good life. However, in [B36]
and [B76] death seemingly plays a different role in which the
fragments could be interpreted as a theory on matter and its
different states. How death in [B47] relates to death in [B36]
and [B76] is not clear at all. And so Nussbaum’s interpretation
of death as an empty existence does not seem to hold across the
fragments, of course we could posit that H. uses death in
different ways across the fragments.
We find a clue in [B51] the only other time where ‘bow’ is
mentioned. Here the use of bow is in relation to its string
being in tension. We can now return to [B47] and interpret H. as
saying that like the attuned string of the bow, where the top
and bottom are pulled with equal force and thus stay in a
harmony so too life and death are two opposing forces whose
struggle results in a balance. It seems obvious then that a
primary reading can be established as one in which H. is
concerned with the nature of nature. This reading melds somewhat
with the states of matter interpretation of [B36] and [B76] in
that the theme revolves around physics or nature. Building on
this reading [B21] could be tenuously interpreted to refer to
hyle (‘dead’ matter) but maybe this goes too far as we must keep
in mind that the same fragment could be interpreted as making an
observation about the experience of life.
CONCLUSION
The interpretation of H. as a phusikoi is well evidenced but in
an attempt to resolve the ambiguities we could say that H. is
talking about opposites not just in nature but in our lived
experience, all in all an observation of being. So we have
speculated as to H.’s subject but what does he say of being? I
cannot say but perhaps it is to do with a unity between mind and
world, that there is no ‘distance’ as Descartes thinks but
something underlying, basic and ‘flowing’ throughout.
#Post#: 32--------------------------------------------------
Re: Heraclitus Essays ;D
By: xavierhn Date: August 28, 2017, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Panta and the arche of unity[/center]
The plural adjective panta (πάντα)
found throughout eleven fragments is translated, without a
substantive, as ‘all’. One is immediately challenged with
figuring out how all, as in many (beings) taken together, comes
about. This is no small feat, due to Heraclitus’ claim that it
is wise following logos to consider all beings are one (en
panta) (Fr. 50). The challenge in understanding how all is one
is in seeing what gives a unity its unifying character, i.e.,
what enables many beings to be considered one? In other words,
Heraclitus seems to be asking, what is the arche of unity (of
beings)? With this question in mind, I will turn to examine
resonances of panta in fragment seven.
[center]Fragment Seven[/center]
The thrust of the fragment reads in that even with the
distorting presence of smoke a distinction between all (beings)
and existent (beings) remains perceptible by a human sense.
That Heraclitus has chosen smoke for showing a perceptible
difference in an obscuring way –as smoke simultaneously screens
off and indicates–suggests that panta ta onta are close together
yet essentially different. The difference presented is seen
through a commonality lying in that panta ta onta characterise
beings as a whole ; panta show all beings to be seen as one,
while onta beings as actual. Here, the similarity is about
beings in terms of a difference between the mode of presence
that beings take , one or actual – yet neither difference show
us the arche, of what makes beings, one or existent, it simply
is sensed.
Diagnoien translated as distinguish taken literally means
‘knowing-through’ as in a careful discerning that differentiates
things. To be discerning, sets apart, but also allows
comparisons to emerge, hence the ‘knowing’ aspect. Diagnoien as
a verb enables us to discern that all beings (panta) are
‘present’ through smoke, a presence not of existence (onta).
This distinguishing characteristic of panta is deepened in
several fragments. Fragment 10, where out of all beings one
emerges, and out of one (en) all beings; fragment 80, panta
comes into being (ginomena) from strife. The movement of
distinguishing, present in fragments 10 and 80, as from out of
something, and as opposed to something, now appears to be a
characteristic of panta, i.e., all has an embracing and
dismantling quality. This seems to make sense when we think
about the transition from many different beings and how they
could be considered to belong together as one, which fragment 64
itself brings out that panta is steered through by lightning;
lightning which has the chief characteristic of a compact
movement enabling many different beings to brought to
appearance. Herein lies the unifying character in the movement
towards appearance, for we say that all beings come forward to
appear in like manner, the moving toward appearance is what
characterises all beings as one: they show themselves.
[center]Conclusion[/center]
To give a provisional answer to our question of what unifying
aspect characterises panta is opened up from lightning in
fragment 64. The belonging together of beings is the result of
being brought forward to appearance, in the open light of
lightning, beings stand presently as one. We call this movement
of panta gathering. Such a standing of beings taken collectively
brought from without, stands opposed to receding into not-being,
namely strife. Strife like war is that which threatens beings as
a whole with the prospect of not-being. Panta as a dynamic
movement pulls beings as a whole between gathering and strife;
between being present and not-being at all.
My interpretation of identifying the nature of panta as one of
movement, namely, a pulling towards being present and not-being
has found great support in Kahn’s principles. With resonance, it
has allowed me to start from fragment 7 on distinguishing, then,
to see an implicit movement there and to draw out thematic
connections with three other fragments that deal with the moving
qualities of panta (Fr. 10, 80, 64). Likewise, ambiguity, shows
in smoke being both a veiling and counterveiling force that I
drew into connection with several fragments, that, in turn,
deepened panta as containing moving oppositions
(gathering-dismantling).
#Post#: 33--------------------------------------------------
Re: Heraclitus Essays ;D
By: StircrazyReality Date: August 28, 2017, 5:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We begin with Fragment 64: ‘Lightning steers all things’ -
τὰ δὲ πάντα
οἰακίζει
κεραυνός.
When the principle of linguistic density is applied to
‘lightning’, two primary groups of meaning are apparent. The
first is lightning as the tool of Zeus, and as fire. The second
is the flash, which in an instantaneous moment lights up all
things from a state of darkness, and with clarity shows all
things in their relations to one another. The first group of
meanings see the phenomenon of lightening as an active force,
while the second group of meanings see lightning as imparting no
movement of its own.
The doxographer from whom we get fragment B64, Hippolytus,
interprets as follows:
“He says that this fire is intelligent and the cause of the
management of the universe, expressing it thus: The Thunderbolt
steers all things (B64) – by the thunderbolt he means the
eternal fire”
Here thunderbolt is clearly an active force, and also one that
is intelligent.
An Aristotelian reading of Heraclitus’s ontology is the he is a
material monist who posits fire as the source of all things. The
reading of this fragment could then be that fire, in its
manifestation as lightning, is an active force that is the
source of all things and drives all things. However, let us move
onto the principle of resonance to see if any other readings
emerge. I will list a series of resonances, and then try and
find a nucleus of meaning that emerges.
There are two mentions of steering;
(B11) Every beast is driven to pasture with a blow
(B41) Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by which
all things are steered through all things.
I will take (B41) as our second clue, as we try and uncover the
phenomenon of ‘steering’, which is the verb of action in (B64).
There is a third fragment that resonates with ‘wisdom’ and ‘one
thing’ in (B41), and ‘Zeus’(the wielder of lightning) in (B64).
(B32) The wise is one thing only. It is willing and unwilling to
be called by the name of Zeus.
It appears that ‘wise’ and ‘Zeus’ can be layered on top of each
other. Standing back, it appears that lightning, Zeus and wisdom
are all closely ties together. If we reflect on this, both
lightning and wisdom reveal things as they really are. Both
lightning and wisdom are said to steer in relation to all
things.
However how can there be something outside of all things that
steers all things? A problem arises with having all things, and
then an extra ‘one steering thing’. The ‘all things’ then does
not mean all things, but only some things. We can look to
fragment 108, in which we must remember that wise is layered on
top of Zeus and lightning.
(B108) Of all whose discourses I have heard, there is not one
who attains to recognizing that the wise is set apart from all.
From this I get the interpretation that lightning and wisdom are
not components of all things, and are not causal movers of all
things in the capacity of a physical force. I reject seeing
lightning as a force. It is the phenomenon of revealing that
steers all things. Wisdom, and the flash of thunderbolt both
show things as things, e.g earth as earth, and it is this
clarity of seeing that steers. This clarity flashes out of the
darkness, a darkness in which all things are indistinct.
I do not yet understand how the phenomenon of steering occurs.
The answer to this can perhaps be found in examining a lack of
steering.
There is more to be explored in terms of the impermanence of the
flash, and man’s relation to darkness.
(B26) Man is kindled and put out like a light in the night-time
There is more to be explored with God, wisdom and how anything
can be ‘unrevealed’.
(B78) The way of man has no wisdom, but that of the gods has
It is important to remember that a flash of lightning does not
occur in clear daylight, but only when there is darkness.
Bibliography
Fink, Eugen, and Martin Heidegger. Heraclitus Seminar.
Translated by Charles H. Seribert. Alabama: University of
Alabama Press, 1970.
Kahn, H. Charles. On reading Heraclitus. In Pre-Socratic reader.
Sydney: University of Sydney
Jonathon Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy
#Post#: 35--------------------------------------------------
Re: Heraclitus Essays ;D
By: RD-C Date: August 30, 2017, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[attachimg=1]
#Post#: 36--------------------------------------------------
Re: Heraclitus Essays ;D
By: RD-C Date: August 30, 2017, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[attachimg=2]
*****************************************************