Transition from
Milesians to Heraclitus

One way to look at the
series of explanatory
theories from Thales onward,
is to think of the later theories as improving in some respects on the earlier ones.

…Milesians to Heraclitus…

Another way to think of the progression is as coming to
have in the explanatory scheme,
not just material principles,
but also non-material principles. (Whereas for Thales everything
comes from a material stuff, water, Anaximenes and the Pythagoreans both include explanatory principles
- motion, number, respectively -
which are not material principles.)

…Milesians to Heraclitus

In fact, Heraclitus’
explanatory theory is
based primarily on a
non-material principle.
And Parmenides is so radical
in his approach, that he denies the reality of the Milesian philosophers’ material (physical) world altogether.

Biographical Facts

§Flourished c. 500 BC
(i.e., was in his 50th year)

§A native of Ephesus on the Coast of Asia Minor, north of Miletus

§An aristocrat by birth

§A neighbor of and a near contemporary of Pythagoras

In Heraclitus’ view…

There is an overall
structure or pattern
exhibited by the natural world.
This is not to deny that there are material elements, such as air, water, fire, earth.
But his idea is that these physical elements are arranged and interact in an orderly, rational way.

As he says, (Fragment 7)…

“Listening not to me
but to the Logos,
it is wise to agree that
all things are one”

§“Logos” (in Fra. 7) refers
primarily to the structure of
the natural world (cosmos).

§Although “Logos” has the meanings “account”, “definition”, “discourse” in Attic Greek, Heraclitus uses it ambiguously
to refer both to his account and
to what his account points to:
the structure of the cosmos.

The Unity of Opposites

This is the truth embodied
in Heraclitus’ logos.

He wants to say that the
truth is that all things are one.

“Listening not to me, but to the Logos [ that is, to the true account/structure of the cosmos], it is wise to agree that all things are one.”

…The Unity of Opposites

The unity of opposites
partly consists in the
regularity of the alternations and the recurrences of the pairs of opposing states in nature as a whole and in objects.

The unity of opposites
is a truth about:

§The cosmos as a whole as
evidenced by the fact that day
and night are one [day] and the alternation of seasons, one year.

§Ordinary objects as evidenced
by the fact that a path is both the way up and the way down.

§Human life as evidenced by the fact that being awake alternates with being asleep.

But this knowledge of
how things are, can be
hard to come by.

§“The real constitution
of things is accustomed
to hide itself.” (Frag. 123)

§“Evil witnesses are eyes and ears for men, if they have souls that do not understand their language.” (Frag. 107)

Accordingly,
Heraclitus says…

“Of the Logos which is as
I describe it, men always prove to be uncomprehending, both before they have heard it, and when once they have heard it. For although all things happen according to this Logos,
men are like people of no experience, even when they experience such words and deeds as I explain.” (Frag. 1)

That is…

People fail to understand
a truth that applies to all
things in nature and to the
cosmos as a whole, although
they have experience of this
truth on a daily basis.

For example…

People tend to think that
illness, fatigue, and hunger
are bad. But in fact, there is a positive aspect to these negative experiences, namely, that they are in some sense necessary for the enjoyment of their opposites: health, rest, satiety.

This example fits into
Heraclitus’ central thought,
namely, that there is a unity or interdependence between opposing states, a unity of opposites that is distinctive of the cosmos as a whole, everyday objects, and
human life in general.

By “Opposite”

Heraclitus mainly seems to
mean absolute contrary pairs,
such as health and sickness,
waking and sleeping, day and night.
But sometimes he means contradictory pairs (as in the River fragment, which I discuss below), sometimes relative contrary pairs as when he says that the path up and down is one and the same (Frg. 60). Also Frg. 61.

When Heraclitus speaks of “unity” of opposites, he means different things:

Sometimes by “unity” he means a recurrent cycle or alternation, such as the day – night cycle, the cycle of the seasons or the alternation between sleep and wakefulness. Since these are regular, recurrent cycles, there is a sense in which each of the cycles forms a unity of opposites.

…By “Unity,” he also means:

§Causal dependence,
as when hunger is a
causal condition of satiety.

§And he also means the subject of predication, such as a road or a river, which both have properties that are opposite in some sense of opposite.

A famous
Heraclitean fragment…

This is the fragment about the impossibility of stepping twice into the same part of the river.

Heraclitus famously says…

“In the same river we step and
do not step [because] different waters flow upon those that
step into it.”

The idea is…

The water in a river changes.

It passes to a different point
in the river bed, it evaporates
and passes onto a bank.

Since the water stages are part of the river, a change in these waters is a change in the river.

So in a sense, every time a person steps into the river,
it is a different river.

…The idea is…

But the point in the river
where the person stands
remains the same, and
the river itself maintains
(roughly) the same course.

So the person does not step and does step into the “same” river.

River is composed of a bank (B) and waters (W)

§At t₁ person steps in at
B₁ and W₁.

§At t₂ person is in at B₁ and W₂.
Person is in the same river,
but its being the same river is
not identical with its having the same physical parts.

So…

An ordinary object, like
a river, has “opposite”
properties. Thus, it is a
unity of opposites. But the opposites in question here are “contradictory” opposites, not contrary, opposites. Since in this fragment, Heraclitus is talking about the river having and not having one portion of water in it.

So Heraclitus’
basic idea is…

The cosmos
(the world order) and
things in the cosmos,
are unities of opposites:
“Cold things grow hot,
a hot thing cold,
a moist thing withers,
a parched thing is wetted.”

You might say…

Heraclitus takes the
Milesian idea of element transformation, and combines it with the Pythagorean idea of balance or proportion.
From these ideas, he derives a theory of the unity of opposites, according to which changes occur in a balanced, orderly way.

With regard to Heraclitus’ view of fire…

He does not, I think, regard
fire as a material first principle
or source of the natural world.
Rather, fire is for him is symbolic of the endless reversals, recurrences and interdependence of opposing states that we experience in nature, in objects and in ourselves.

Fragment 30…

“This world did none of
gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures.”

He is, I think, saying…

That the cosmos is
self-made or self-grown
and that it exhibits an order
(of opposites) which is like the pattern of justice insofar as nothing is taken away without something being given back.

In sum, Heraclitus’ theme of a unity of opposites…

Can be regarded as the
first abstract (non-material) explanatory hypothesis,
because he is contending that
the “opposite” states, which we experience are really manifestations of different kinds of unities.

…Heraclitus’ theme
of a unity of opposites…

To grasp this fact requires
reason and reflection.
So the explanatory scheme
is not purely materialistic.
It includes a rational postulate:
the idea of underlying unity.

What is the significance
of Heraclitus’ theory?

Among other things, he is proposing that the cosmos (or universe) as a whole has a rational, understandable structure. He is not just saying that there is some natural element that is fundamental source of everything. Rather he is saying that whatever elements that there are, they interact in rational, orderly ways.

He is then the 1st philosopher to make explicit the idea of rational cosmic order.

Plato and Aristotle develop this
idea of a rationally ordered cosmos.
They further maintain that human behavior should exhibit the same rationality that characterizes the normal workings of the cosmos.
This view of how a good person ought to behave is called “naturalism.”