Heraclitus of Ephesus
Exploring the philosophical thought of Heraclitus and its critique by Aristotle
About
Heraclitus is considered to be one of the most important early Greek philosophers. He lived during the early 6th century to the late 5th century BC. There are around 150 fragments associated with Heraclitus, out of which only 57 are accepted as genuinely Heraclitan ‘cosmic fragments’. This is a significant increase as compared to the dearth of other pre-Socratics’ fragments.
While reading Heraclitus…
A few things must be kept in mind while reading Heraclitus’ work.
The neo-Platonists and Stoics claimed that Heraclitus was the forerunner of Stoicism. So it must be kept in mind that the lenses used by them to analyze Heraclitan thought were not completely impartial. They might have misrepresented him by virtue of emphasis on one aspect of his thought. The Stoics attributed to Heraclitus the idea of Ecpyrosis (conflagration) — as per which there would be destruction of the world by fire and then its rejuvenation from ashes. But it is unlikely that this idea actually came from Heraclitus.
The works of Plato and Aristotle, which are a major source of Heraclitan thought, did not do justice to it. They did not analyze it enough. Thus, reduction and misrepresentation of his work through the accounts of others must be realized.
His writing style
Heraclitus had a cryptic writing style which has been compared to that of oracles. He wrote philosophical riddles, most of them being one-liners. The 3rd century satirist Philus called him the Riddler, Cicero called him the obscurer, Theophrastus attributed the word ‘melancholia’ (meaning impulsive) to him — which is why later he came to be known as the ‘weeping philosopher’. The speculation behind the intent of such a style has led to numerous beliefs — did he do it to gain authority? Is it because access to his thought was not meant for everyone? A more likely explanation seems to be that he did it to encourage the reader’s epistemic agency, so that they are invested in the aspect of knowing.
Major themes in his philosophy
Following are the concepts Heraclitus wrote about:
- Change and unity — primacy of change, play of opposites, unity of opposites
- Logos —cardinal principle, rational divine intelligence
- Fire —cosmogony with fire as arche, bound by the naturalist tradition
It seems that Plato summarizes Heraclitus’ philosophy in one line — ‘everything is in flux’. He uses the phrase ‘panta chorei’ — which means everything moves/changes — to explain Heraclitus’ thoughts, which seems reductionist and dismissive of his other contributions.
Thus, it is important to note that Heraclitus focused on both change and stability, and not just on the former — which is what is emphasized upon by Plato, Aristotle and most of the others who wrote about him.
Change and Logos
Our senses provide us with a notion of change in the world. But this ‘change’ does not entail randomness. He believed that the cosmos was deeply regular. As per Heraclitus, underlying all change is a stable core — logos. As per its general usage, logos means account, but Heraclitus used it in a different sense. Logos can be understood to have several meanings — 1) the order underlying cosmos, and 2) the principle of balance (measure/ratio). For Heraclitus, causation (which brings about change) was equivalent to necessary relation. (Note that Hume was born much later.) He was looking for uniformity/regularity in things. The idea of uniformity is central to the idea of law (logos is a law here). Invoking the law of necessary reason, he believed that regularity/uniformity would not have been encountered had there not been a necessity. Logos ensures that all change takes place in a particular way. Therefore, to accept change is to accept the necessity of balance and order. In the absence of logos, there is chaos. Invoking the notion of change is the same as invoking the notion of necessity — in asking how/why, one is assuming a principle. An analysis of the seemingly commonsensical idea of ‘change’ is what enables us to get to the ‘underlying principle’ of necessity (logos).
Change — (implies) — necessity — (implies) — stability — (implies) — uniformity/regularity
Our understanding of Heraclitus operates at a level of abstraction. Thus, it becomes important to differentiate between principles of cosmos and their manifestation. Principles are arrived at when we analyze and practice abstract thinking. Logos is arrived at after an abstraction of the cosmos. This helps us appreciate the different planes of existence, as has been done by Plato through his distinction between the realms of forms and appearances. It is important to note that while the cosmos changes, Logos does not. Invocation of the concept of dike and logos (justice and reason) is the same as invocation of order — in which the latter is not fabricated, but discovered/is a given.
Fire as the arche
Change is also reflected in his arche. Heraclitus believed that fire (aither/pyre), was the arche or the first principle, governed by the logos — which is responsible for the creation of everything. The notion of fire as the arche suits the doxa (what is widely accepted). All living things are warm. All dead things are cold. The divine realm is (or is/was supposed as being) a fiery realm. It is though the regulation of fire by logos that all things are born. So, the material element of fire is not enough by itself. Again, as in the case of other pre-Socratics like Anaximenes, ‘fire’ as an arche is different from the regular fire. It is cosmic or ‘pure’ fire. The regular fire, along with the other things in the world, is just derived from it. Similar to Anaximenes’ explanation for air as an arche, fire produces things through rarefaction and condensation. Everything is made from it and returns to it (to ensure balance). The total remains unchanged so there is no destruction or ‘birth’ that adds/takes away from what is already there. This idea of retention can be compared to the principle of conservation of mass/energy in modern-day physics.
River Fragments
A river is always changing. So even though one cannot step into the same river twice, this myriad of changes — the flowing river water and the changing banks — is what is meant by a river. This understanding brings out the ‘changing’ dimension of a thing along with the invocation of the notion of unity as a changing unit.
All is one
“Hearing not me, but the logos, it is wise to agree that all things are one.”
— Heraclitus
Heraclitus anticipated Paremenides’ theory. Here, logos means the principle that binds together all things so that they become one. (There is unity in multiplicity.) The reason why we think there is multiplicity because our limited senses can only experience parts of the world at a time. In a way, Heraclitus’ Logos is a ‘Theory of Everything’ as it is a law which unifies all laws. He believed that one who understands logos understanding everything there is in the world. For Heraclitus, the concept of the sovereign individual is not there. Existence must be seen as holistic for unity to be there.
Unity of opposites
All diversity is tied down by the unitary ordered cosmos. When we see diversity, there is actually unity, and wisdom lies in recognizing this unity. Unity is not negated when the objects appear to be in strife or conflict.
The idea of ‘play of opposites’ is mediated by logos to bring about balance. For Heraclitus, in opposition to Anaximander, the conflict between opposites is essential to bring about unity and oneness. This notion of conflict is also apparent in his choice of fire as the arche.
“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.” — Heraclitus
But one might ask — how can opposites adhere together? Because of logos. Though there is a war of opposites, they actually constitute a unity because of logos. (This can be understood through the application of civic norms which manage/aim to unify a community in which opposites reside.)
“Seawater poisons humans but fish need it to live.”
“The road up is the same as the road down.”
— Heraclitus
Opposite properties can and do exist within the same thing. It is essential to note that for Heraclitus, opposite means different and not necessarily contradictory. He believed we would have had an incomplete picture of the world if opposites had not been there as we cannot make sense of ‘one’ without the ‘other’. Opposites are what constitutes a unit. They are not irreconcilable. There is no absolute division between them as ultimately, all divisions are unit.
Thus, what appears to be change/strife, when mediated by logos, reveals itself to be unity. This seems to be what Plato was talking about — how things appear to be versus how they actually are. Senses should not be trusted, because they show us that opposites can never be one, even though they are (foreshadowing Parmenides’ beliefs). Even though Heraclitus marks a difference between appearances and reality, he held that change is real and not an illusion.
It is important to note that contrary to popular interpretation, Heraclitus was not a subjective idealist/relativist. The subject experiencing the object is not providing it with qualities because the qualities are inherent to the object itself. Relativism is a misinterpretation of the concept of unity — because on what basis could a subject impose contrary properties to one object? The predication of attributes/qualities upon entities is limited by the nature (Phusis) of the entity itself. (This is what Aristotle meant by natural — what’s inherent to the object.)
Critique of Heraclitan Notion of Change
For Heraclitus, change is a manifestation of logos in effort to strike balance. There has been a debate around what he might have meant when he said — all is always changing.
Plato tried to express the ‘absurdity’ in Heraclitus’ thought in his work Theaetetus, by countering Heraclitus’ “You cannot step into the same river twice” with “You cannot step into the same river even once.” But this seems to be taking Heraclitus’ thought to a logical extreme, which is unfair and seems like an attempt to unjustly dismiss his thought by reducing it to one misunderstood principle.
Aristotle rejects Heraclitus’ thought on the basis of the violation of the law of contradiction.
a.~a is impossible
The above ‘impossibility’ is asserted by Heraclitus (as Aristotle thought) in the unity of opposites.
In Heraclitus’ defense, when he was talking about opposites, he was not talking about contradictories, he was just talking about different or contraries. Also, he was not operating with the law of contradiction, which only became apparent after Parmenides.
Heraclitus is not propounding a relation like a.~a, but that of a.b. (contraries, not contradictories). Thus, his notion of opposites does not invoke a relation of identity (distinction) but that of continuity/spectrum.
Thus, in a.b, what Heraclitus intended was b≠~a, but what Aristotle attributed to him was b≡~a. So, in Heraclitus’ philosophy, a.~a ≠ a.b (hot.not hot)≠(hot.cold). Hence the criticism does not stand.
Another criticism can be raised against Heraclitus, and this one stands. It is that Heraclitus commits the fallacy of equivocation (he used the same term in different senses). He uses ‘one’ to express unity and identity both. Why does he speak of ‘one’ when unity can accommodate all differences? Also, unity implies a continuum (of more than one)— it is not one. It is varying. Whereas, one is homogenous and not varying (like when it is used to express the concept of identity). ‘One’ does not invoke the notion of continuum at all.
Logos as hidden
Heraclitus invokes the Principle of Exclusivity (which is how philosophy seems to have operated right from the beginning) as per which a specific kind of soul is needed — an epistemic self, a knower — to understand philosophical thought (most importantly, logos). He was perhaps the first person to come up with the concept of a ‘knower’. For Heraclitus, the soul was thumos, and not pneuma, as it propels one into action. Phusis (nature) and its inclination to hide itself was later interpreted by Plato to provide avenue for the realm of Episteme. The idea of nature (phusis), or what is inherent in an object also emerged for the first time.
As per Heraclitus, Logos has an inclination to hide itself. If ‘thinking’ (right thinking) was an actuality, then Logos would not have been hidden. But it is a potentiality. Thus, to reach from the flux provided to us by our senses to the unity or logos that underlies everything, we require insight. He takes Anaximander’s abstraction further by basing his thought in the belief that sense cannot provide a complete understanding of the world. We only enquire about things that are hidden, thus the movement towards ‘right thinking’ is a conscious effort.
If one emphasizes only upon what is provided by the senses (like Thales and Anaximenes did), one will be limited only to the elements. But logos is not provided to us by our senses. Heraclitan thought has the novelty of encouraging us to go beyond our senses. Thus, to understand the logos is to understand/discover the given/hidden. This ‘going beyond’ requires a method. Here, the importance of passivity in understanding the simple — reception through senses without agency, is not dismissed. Rather, it is realized that the very creation of complex ideas involves ‘going beyond’. He did not imply that the senses were illusionary — just that they only provide a part of the truth — and to obtain the whole truth one needs to realize the other part(s) as well.
Knowledge can only emerge when one goes beyond the senses--but as Hume emphasized, one’s beyond must be, in a sense, confined to the senses (Ideas need to correspond with the senses).
Heraclitus believed that for Gods, right thinking is intrinsic to their being. This is because access to logos is an actuality for them. It is because God can see logos that they are able to see balance in diversity (justice/dike). Logos is not hidden for them.
Endnote
There is a danger in agreeing too much with Heraclitus — in accepting whatever ‘change’ that is happening as being ‘necessary’. This fatalism would be an extreme misinterpretation of Heraclitus. Thus, one must be cautious while interpreting a thinker’s thought — both to prevent misinterpretation and taking it to mean more than was actually meant by the thinker.
