social roots of the heraclitean metaphysics

8/11/2019 Social Roots of the Heraclitean Metaphysics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-roots-of-the-heraclitean-metaphysics 1/8

Social Roots of the Heraclitean MetaphysicsAuthor(s): Bertrand HelmSource: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1964), pp. 565-571Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708186 .

Accessed: 25/01/2014 18:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:16:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708186?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708186?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn



SOCIAL

ROOTS OF

THE

HERACLITEAN METAPHYSICS

By BERTRAND HELM

A recurrentaskofthehistoryfthoughts thatofdescribingowphi-

losophy

ifferentiatestself

ut of

religionnd

myth.

nvestigators

eek

to

shown

detail

how ome f

thebare

assertionsbout

religious

ealityinger

on

in

transmutedorm s

the

ultimate

tarting oints

f

philosophicaln-

quiry.

tudies f this

kind

bound

within

he

fields f

the

history

f

Greek

philosophynd ofthe

origins

f

Westernulture.

any

ofthem an

be

seen

as

well-documentedlaborations

f

the

udgment

hat there s no

discon-

tinuity etweenonian

natural

hilosophy

nd the

Homeric

pics.

The-

ogony ingers

n as a

rudimentary

orm

f

physics

r

astronomy.

he

genealogy fthe godsprovides heplausibilityor nnouncingheinter-

relatedness

f

all things.

The

religiousdeas

of Homer

nd Hesiodon theone

hand

nd the

mys-

tery eligions

n

the

othermake

up

thetwo forms f tradition

hich ave

beenmost

vigorously

ifted

n

order o detect

he

earliest orms f ration-

ality.

Relationshipsetweenhis

wo-fold

eligious

radition

nd

philosophy

have been

detailed uite

horoughly

n

the

case of

the

pre-Socratics. hen

examining

eraclitus,

owever,he

customarypproach eeds t least

ome

re-appraisal. orinonly n imperfectashion otheOlympianrmystery

religions

rovide

bridge or he

understandingf the

dark

sayings

f

Heraclitus.

e dissociates

is

own

work

rom

he

prestige

f

Homer, esiod,

and

the

mysteries

xplicitly.2is

philosophyeems ui

generis

n

many e-

spects.

erse,

austic,

ieratic,ts

discontinuities

ith

he onian

philosophi-

cal

traditions

re at

least as

striking

s

its

harmony ith

partsof

that

tradition.

ur concern

ere s one

which

rows ut

of

an

efforto

throw

greater

ight pon hat

part

fhis

hought hich

reacheshe

usual

affinities

between

he

early

philosophers.he

positionhat

will be

setforward

ere

isthatHeraclituss a gooddealmore omprehensibleo uswhenweseepart

of his

thought

s

rooted

n

a

third

eligiousradition

f ancient

reece,

he

domestic

eligionf

the

patriarchs.

his

s theprivate

eligionf

the

risto-

cratic

ousehold

hich enters

round he

hearth.

The

family

f

Heraclitus an be

traced

back

through

ndrocluso

Codrus,

he

egendarying

who

founded

thens. he

hereditary

ingshipf

Ephesus

wasseated n

this

family.t

was,

moreover,

kingship hose

eli-

gious

nd

political

unctions

ere losely

ntertwined.

eraclitus,eir o

the

royalpriesthoodfEphesus,bdicatedn favor f hisbrother.3e held, s

a

consequence,

either

hierarchicor

monarchicalffice.

is

moral nd

religious

uthority

as

neverthelessuite

xtensive.

There

s nodoubt

hat

he

frequently

ntervened

n

thepolitics f

his

birthplace,nd

he s even

aid

to have

induced

he

ruling rince,

Melancomas, o

resign is

usurped

u-

lWerner

aeger,

aideia

New

York,

1943),

,

151.

2

Fr. 14,

42,

56,57,

and 68,

n

Kathleen

reeman,

ncilla

Oxford,

948).All

other

ragments

eferred

o

here

re

from

his

ranslation.

3

Diogenes

aertius,

X, 4-6.

565







566 BERTRAND

HELM

thority.

The restof

his

public

ctivities

vidently

entered

round

he

Ephesian

emple

f Artemis. he bookhe is said to have written as

de-

posited here.

Moreover,

e

preferred

ingering

t

children's

ames

n

the

temple ourtyardomingling ithhisfellow phesians; hey, e thought,

should

nd

their wn

ives.5 ehind

his

outspokenests

at the

populace

f

his

city

ay

a

mind

whichwas

openly

ritical

fthe

bad

constitution

hich

linked

he

people ogether.

itterly

ritical f

many

fhis

great redecessors

inpoetry

nd philosophy,eraclitus ad

no

rapport

ith

his own

peers.

Ephesuswas a colony lanted ntheshore f Asia

Minor

by

Athens.

The

relations etweenolony ndparent itywere

lose

nd constant.

very

Greek

olony

f the

arly eriod,ncludingphesus,ustified

r

egitimized

itscontinuedifeby showinghat ife o bederivative,hroughnunbroken

succession

f

hereditaryriest-kings,

rom

he

original

ity

which ired

t.6

Heraclitus new

hat Ephesus,

egally

nd

religiously, as right

nd true

insofar s its public ult ifewas

derivative,hrough

is

family,

rom

he

public ife of Athenswhose

egitimate ounder

as

Codrus.

The

priestly

caste nto

which e was bornhadas its chief ask the

undeviating ainte-

nance of

the spiritual elation etween phesus nd

Athens. ut impor-

tantly,hepublic eligion hich

hecasteupheldwas at

the ametime he

private

eligion,r rooted n theprivate

eligion,

f an

aristocraticamily.

Let us examine hispatriarchal amily eligion.7t wasboth series f

practices

nd a system f beliefs.

lmost abitual nnature, he practices

were

constituent

art f each

family's aily ctivities.he beliefs, n the

other

and,

were

broughto clear

expressionnly

t

times

f crisis n the

life of

the family. ut in a

unique way both practice nd beliefwere

brought

o

sharp ocus

n

the

family

earth.

aving he

hearth

s its prin-

cipalaxis, hisdomestic ult

establishedhe family s

such.As Glotzputs

it, he

family

s

a groupwhich reatheshe ame ltar

moke.8

It wasinreferenceo therealities fthehearth hatfamilyife ook n

full

meaning.

he

hearthwasinvoked t all personal nd

family rises.All

those

ulticpractices rnold an

Gennep eferredo as the rites f pas-

sage

were

enteredroundt.

Supportingheirnvocationsith trict itual,

the

patriarchal amiliesmade

claimupon hepowers fthehearth t times

of

birth,

marriage,nd death.Atthese ransitional

limaxes f human ife,

safe

passage

from ne

tage f

existenceo thenextwasassured hroughhe

intercessionf hefire n

the

hearth. he waxing ndwaning f hefirewere

4Theodor

Gomperz, reek hinkersLondon, 955), , 60.

5

Diogenes

aertius,

X, 2-4;

Fr. 114,

they

hould ang

hemselves.

6

MartinNilsson,

reek

iety

Oxford,951),

6;

andFustel

De

Coulanges,

he

Ancient

ity New

York,

956),

176-179.

7

Thebest

generalccount

s

still nDe

Coulanges,

p.

cit.,Book

Two.

Forthe

position f

theman

without

family,

ee

B. A.

Van

Groningen,n The

Grip fThe

Past

(Leiden,

953),

54-58. n

order o

fill n

thewider

ocial ontext

fthe

Greek

family, efer

o

Alfred

immern,he

Greek

Commonwealth

New

York,

1956),

61-75.

8

G. Glotz, heGreek ity NewYork, 930),6.







SOCIAL ROOTS OF HERACLITEANISM 567

seen

s

expressive

fthe

periodicitynderlying

hewhole fhuman

ife.No

natural

orn nfant

as

a child f this

man or an

heir

f

this

family

ntil

several ays

after

oming

rom

he

womb.

he rite f

acceptance,

hebirth-

ritereally,was actedout when hefatherrrulinglder f thefamilyan

around he hearth everal imeswith

he infant.

He allowed he fire

o

scrutinize

henovitiate,nd

to accept rreject

t.9

Later

on,marriage

as

valid

only

f

the bride-to-be as introduced

o herhusband's earth

rop-

erly.

At

the

critical

moment,ride nd groom

hared

cake with he fire.

She

was

acceptable

when hefire id not

give

n unfavorable

ign. inally,

at death, ritually xactburial

was needed o ensure

afe

passage

to the

nextworld. he authenticityftheburialwasassuredhroughropernvo-

cationof thepowers fthe hearth. he hearthwas overseer orcorrect

departurend nsuredafe rrival t thatfarther

lace.10

Thus, hehearthmediated r nterceded

uring

herites f

passage.

This

was the

upreme est

of

the

potency

f the

fire

hatburned

n thathearth

day

and

night.

he firewas

the

authoritativeouncil

f the full

family,

drawing ogether

oth

he iving nd thedead;

the

continuingresence

f

the dead

was

mademanifest

n

and

through

he fire.

Each

family

ad

a

fire

epresentingtsownset of

ancestors, ut the conviction as

common

to

all families

hat

hefirewas

a

definite

eing.

t was the

continuedife

f

thosewhoweredead revealed ndinterveningor he benefitf the iving.

The

fire

was the

corporate

oul

of

the

preceding enerations;heir pirit

remainedncarnaten it. It was

the theatre it of the family n solemn

assembly.

t was

due to this

piritual r social nature f the fire n the

hearth

hat hehearth

ook n tscapacity fofficiatingt thecrises fper-

sonal and familial

ife.Thisbeliefwas so deeply ngrainedn the thought

of that

ime hat t

lingeredn

persuasivelynto aterperiods f socialde-

velopment.

t a far

advanced tage n the growth f the city-state,he

hearth tillretainedtsprimitivescendancyn certain ffairs. omicide,

for

xample,

as never

civil

offense;

t

was personal nd domestic.'2he

family

till

retainedurisdictionn

such cases, for t and it alone could

properlyudge of the passing f

a man from hisworld o the next.The

domestic,atriarchaleligion ere eemed o stand mperviouso themore

general evelopmentsf society.

ivic aw, ate in its development,ould

not override he essential egal prerogativesf the family, rerogatives

9

An

nterestingelic

fthis

belief

s

preserved

or sby

Plato

(Theaetetus,

60-

161).He hasSocratesay then his s thechild i.e.the udgmenthatknowledge

is

perception)

hich

ou and I

have

with

difficultyroughtntothe

world.

And

now hathe is

born,

we must

un round

he

hearthwith

him,

nd see

whether

e

is worth

earing,

r

is

only

wind-egg

nd a

sham.

Socratic

midwifery

s

based

upon

forcingpinions o run round

hefire

f

critical

nquiry

o see f

they

an

stand

p

as

knowledge.

10

See

Arnold an

Gennep,

he

Rites

of

Passage

(Chicago,

960),

for

further

discussionf the

ritual

dentification

f

spiritual

evelopmentnd

progressionith

spatial

r

territorial

assage

r

movement.

Konstantinas

odocanachi,

thens

ndThe

GreekMiracle Boston, 951),36.

12

PaulVinogradoff,utlinesf

Historical

urisprudence

Oxford,

922),

I, 177.







568

BERTRAND

HELM

rooted

n the

rites

fthe

hearth.

In

observing

hese

ractices

ocused

round he

hearth,

e

see that

hey

were

based

upon

he

unquenched

onviction

hatfire s a

personal

eing.

t

is a moral gentwhichdirects nd admonishes,nd it is an intelligence

which

riticizes,

eaches,

nd

decides. t wasseen

s

thecumulative

isdom

of all the

preceding

alemembers

f he

family.

ut t was

also

procreative

or

generative.

uture

enerations

ere

ichly

resent

n t.

t

was,

moreover,

representative

f

a

composite

gency.

ts

insights

ere he

refined

nder-

standings

hich

ould

ome

from riticism

nd

udgment

fthe

family

s

a

whole.

That

is,

the

truths he

fire

arried n

were

ruths

hich

eedto

be

seen n

the

ight

f

the

udgment

f

many.

t was

this

depth

lementn

the

nature ffire,ts piritualichness,hat onstitutedhe uthenticitytcould

guaranteeor ll

human

elations

orked ut

under ts

auspices.

The most

profound

haracteristic

f

the

fire

was

its

religious

ower.

t

representedhat n man

which s

immortal.

he

spirit

f

theman

who

died

joined

with

r

flowed

ack nto

he

biding

amily,

being

hat

does

not

die.

But

t

was

the

detailed

orrectnessn

observing

he

hearth

ites

f

the

iving

members

fthe

family

hich

omehow

elped

o

keep

he

whole

f

the

fam-

ily

alive.

A

man's

worst

rime,

ne

which

llowed f

no

forgiveness,

as

that

of

allowing

hefire

o

die. To

permit

his

was to

take

active

part

n

dissi-

pating hefamily. ut to keepthe fire ctive ndnourished as to

con-

tribute

o the

vitality

f

the

family.

or

the

iving

nd

the

dead

were

n

constant

ommunication

ith

each

other

hrough

he

fire.

ach

was

the

guarantor

f the

other;

3

each

cared

for

he

other.

he

hearth ire,

nd

the

wisdom

nd

moral

ower f

t,was the

constant

mediator

etweenhe

two

parts

of the

family.

n

a

strong

ense,

oth

he

iving

nd

the

dead

were

simply

ifferentiationsf

t.

The

firewas

seen

s

the

unifying

ubstance,he

abiding

eality,

f

he

family;

t

was

the

ource

f

he

xisting

uman

eings

inthepatriarchalome.

The

traditions f

the

hearth

were

non-rationaln

a

not

insignificant

manner.

hey

erved

o

help

he

breathers

f

he

ame

ltar

moke

hrough

transitionsn

life

which

efy

xplanation.

en

touched

mysteries

ere,

nd

reason

ould

only

partly

ecure

hem

n a

grasp

of

the

powers

which

is-

closed nd

hid

themselves

round

he

hearth.

he

powers

nd

the

rites f

any

onehearth

were

not

discussed

ith

utsiders,

ecause

uch

revelation

to

the

uninitiate

as

a

profanation

f

the

divinities

f

the

family.

his

s

why

ur

sources

re

mute

n

the

pecific

ontent

f

anyonedomesticeli-gion.Onlygeneral ccounts fthemore

formal

lements

ommon

o all

survive,

kind

f

common

aw

of

the

hearth.14

13

mile

Mireaux,

aily

Life

n

The

Time

of

Homer

New

York,

1959),

84.

14

Vinogradoff,

p.

cit.,

I,

6, The

connection

etween

amily

aw

and

family

religion,he

fforts

o

keep

up

the

material

ouseholds

entered

round

he

ncestral

cults

.

. . these

features

recur

over

and

over

again

and

evidently

go

back

to

an

archaic

ssociation

f

kinsman

ommon

o all

Greeks.

or

a

quite

clear

tatement

ofthis

elation

etween

ncestral

acrifice

nd

a

common

aw

of

the

Greeks,

aN

KOcM

r'V 'EXAXtvwv

oputa,

see Thucydides,he PeloponnesianWar (Harvard,1961),

Book

Three,

9-60.







SOCIAL

ROOTS

OF

HERACLITEANISM

569

We

have

examined

he

patriarchal

amily

eligion

f

the Greeks.

t

is

this

et

of

beliefs

nd attitudes hich

rovides

s with he most

ccurate

context

orthe

Heraclitean

hilosophy.

he

problems

f

interpretingispositionwith onfidenceresizeable, ut not nsurmountable.n

addition

to the

work f

the

historians

f

philosophy,

heresults

f

the

nvestigations

of the

classical

philologistsllow us to have

constantly

eepening

nsights

intothe

pre-Socratic

hilosophy.

ur own

nquiry

ere,

we

argue, laces

additional

weight

ehind

he

cutting

dge

of

those

nvestigations.

or

seen

against

he

raditions

resentn

Hellenic

ociety

urrounding

hehearth

ire,

some f

what

eems

o usto

be

relatively

ague n

the

houghtfHeraclitus

becomes

ather

lear.

He

makes

uncommon

ood

sensewhenwe read

his

'fire' n manypassages n terms fthehearth-fire.15e was called The

Obscure

t

a

later

ime

artly

ecause

his

nterpretersnd critics

adlost

any

meaningful

ontact

with

he

aristocratic

eligion

fthe

hearth.

ut

if

we

allow

someofhis

dark

ayings

o be

illuminatedy

the

fire n

that

hearth,

hen

hey

an

help

enlighten

s about

the

place

ofthe

philosophy

of

Heraclitusn

the

historyf

deas.

Let

us

examine

few

fthe

central

heses

fhis

philosophy

nthe

ight

of

our

previous

iscussions.

hat s,

we

shall

udge

he

mannern

which

ur

survey

fthepatriarchalomesticeligionllowsus todiscernhe distin-

guishing

haracteristicsnd

discriminating

ffects

fhis

more

mportant

utterances,

specially

hose

ealing

with he

ogos

doctrine

ndthe

concept

of

fire.

The

analogy

entralo

much

fthe

Heraclitean

metaphysicss

the

fire

analogy.We

areto

see

the

beliefs

ndrites

onnected

ith

he

hearth

ire s

providinghe

xplicit

nterior

elationsf

his

philosophy.'6

he

key

nalogy

15

However,

ee

G.

S.

Kirk,

Heraclitus:The

Cosmic

Fragments

Cambridge,

1954),

316,

for

n

opposing

iew

n

this

point:

The

fire n

questions not implythatwhich urnsnthehearth,ecause hishasnoclaim

o be

more

mportantr

more

rimary

han

ea

or

earth.

takefirm

xceptiono

Kirk's

udgmentn

this

point.

nasmuch

s

he

did

not

argue

his

view

here

n

any

way,

we

proceed

with

consideration

f

our

own

vidence.

16The

opportunity

s

at

hand

for

putting

o

rest

orever

peculation

bout

why

Heraclitus

hose

ire

s his

central

oncept.

uch

peculation

enerally

roceeds

rom

a

referenceo

traits

ossessed

y

our

empirical

ire;

e.g. Frederick

opleston,

A

History

f

Philosophy

London,

956),

,

40;

only

autiously

uggested

y

Kirk

and

Raven, The

Presocratic

hilosophers

Cambridge,

962),

200; most

clearly

stated n a workwhich ashadwide nfluencenthepastbyJohn urnet, arly

Greek

hilosophy

London,

908),

161,

where

urnet

aid

that

we

can

easily

ee

why

Heraclitus

hose

ire

s

the

unifying

oncept

if

we

consider

he

phenomenon

of

combustion.

he

mplications

f

this

naturalistic

ind

f

explanation

an

be

seen

in

Eduard

Zeller,

utlines

f

the

History

f

Greek

hilosophy

New

York,

1955),

46,

where

the

reason

or

his

hypothesisies

n

the

first

nstance

n

the

fact

hat

fire

eemed

o

the

philosopher

he

ubstance

hich

as

east

tability

nd

east

oler-

ates

t

than

others.

hat

s,

we

can

still

end

o

read

Heraclitus

s

the

philosopher

of

change,

ecoming,nd

flux

o

the

extent

hat

we

are

unclear

bout

his

root

n-

alogy.We would till endto seehisconceptsflogos nd fire s opposingach

other.

hey

do

not.







570

BERTRAND

HELM

could

be

stated

n

these

erms: hecosmoss thehearth-fire

rit

arge.

Just

as thefire

mediated

ithin

he

family,

o too does

t allow

ofthe

ransitions

of some

things

ntoother

hings

n the

universe. eraclitus

ook

all

the

moral, eligious,ndspiritualelations hich ermeatehe ristocraticeli-

gious

ites

nd formed

he

rest

f

the

reality

fterheir

mage.

or

him, he

physical

orldwas

seen

ua

world,

s

ordered,

nsofars

the

relations

hich

give

t

the

quality

f

wholeness ere

onceived

long

he ines f

a

familial,

moral

orporation.ach

thing

s

to be

appraised

nd

assigned

tsown

pecul-

iar

mportancerom

hepoint

f

view

f

the

parliament

f all

things.

Fire,

having

ome

upon

hem,

will

udge

and seize

upon

ll

things.

7This

was

just

whatfire

id

as

a

regular

art

of

family

iving,

nd

did

critically

ell

at eachofthecentral ites fpassage.

The

key

fragmentn

depictinghe

nalogical

ase of

the

metaphysics

f

Heraclituss

the

following:

This

ordered

niverse

cosmos),

which s the

same for

ll,was

not

created

y

any

one

of the

gods

or

of

mankind,

ut t

was

ever

and

is

and shall

be

ever-living

ire,kindled

n

measure nd

quenched

n

measure.

8

The

religious nd the

regulative lements

re

strongly

ntertwined

ere. or

every

ellenic

ristocrat,

hefire n

thehearth

was

immortal.

he

purpose

n

tracing

ne's

family

ack

to a

mythical

founder

as to show

hat

he

familyine

bridged

he

gulf

etween

he

hu-

manand thedivine ven n itsfirstmembers.ach hearth-fire,oreover,

as a

religious

ollegium,as

everliving. ust

s it

waxed

nd

waned c-

cordingo

the

time f

day

or

particular

omestic

se, o

toothe

world-fire,

the

hearth

or ll

existing

hings,

indles

ndgoes

out n

measures.

In his

fire

nalogy,

eraclitus

s

perhaps

aying,

he

world s

one n

the

same

way

a

family

ith

ll its

ivingnd

ts

dead

and ts

future

enerations

is

one.The

unifying

owers

f

the

hearth

were he

result f

counsel,

udg-

ment,

nd

controversy.

hey

were

xpressive

f a

needed

quilibrium

n

the

affairsfthefamily,hefamily ith ll itspresent,ast, ndfutureimen-

sions.

As is

often

oted,

eyond

is

apparent

oncern

ith

he

diversity

f

experience

e

discover

eraclitus'

eal

emphasis

o

be

upon

he

order

nd

rhythm

hich

make

diversity

omething

ore

han

fragments

f

things

n

unsettled

urmoil.

The

position

e

argue

here

akes

on ts

complete

ontours

nthe

ight f

the

ogos

doctrine

f

Heraclitus.

n

that

doctrine,

eraclitus

till

remained

within

he

nalogical

mbit f

the

hearth-fire.

n

that

radition,

he

hearth-

fire,

s

fire,

s

residual,

urified

isdom.

t

derived

rom

nnumerable

on-

claves.His logosdoctrine as hiswayofspeaking ftheparliamentary,

dialogical,

nterpersonal

lement

hat

was

revealed

n

the

full

fficacy

fthe

fire

which

nified

he

whole

amily.

or

that

firewas

the

forum

here

the

divine-human

ncounter

ook

place.

Just

s

the

hearth-fire

llowed

ach

17

Fr.

66.

This

does

not

place

fire

n

opposition

o

order,

ut

makes

t

the

basis

of

order.

ee,

however,

he

opposing

iew

stated

trongly

y

Olof

Gigon,

Unter-

suchungenu

Heraklit

Leipzig,

935),

58-65.

For

Gigon,

ire

nd

cosmos

n

the

philosophy

f

Heraclitus

tand

ver

gainst

ach

other.

n

such

view,

Heraclitus

is seen s developinghethoughtfAnaximandernthedirectionfthe heoriesf

Empedocles nd

the

principlesf

ove

and

strife.

18

Fr.

30.







SOCIAL

ROOTS

OF

HERACLITEANISM

571

person

he

position

hich

e had n the

family

tructure,

o too

did

the

ogos

or

proportion

evealed

hrough

hat fire

ake

precedence

verthe

under-

standings f the

ndividual.

eraclitus,

e

observe,

pecifically

isclaimed

final esponsibilityorhisphilosophy.19he truths esoughtospeakbore

fruitn

the

degree hat

his

own

omprehensionas

rooted

n

the

ogos.

t

is

the

ogos

which

roportionsur

understandings

o

thereal

reach f

things,

enabling s

to

separate

hings

ccording

o their

inds,20

r

perhaps

o

di-

vide

things t their

roximate

oints.21

And it

was this

ogos,

moral

nd

cognitive,hichwas to

show s that ll

things

re

one.

Revealed

n the

fire,

but

still

hidden

nd

potential,22

t

supplies

he

ultimate

ongruence

or

ll

thingswhich

ave arisen

hrough

t.

The

logosprovides

he

discriminating

standards or uthentichought.23t is that enseharmonyhrough hich

things re

brought

nto

xistence

nd

ushered ut

again.

That

is,

the

ogos

officiatest

all rites

f

passage.

The

closest ind

of

relation

xisted

etween

mpartialitynd

imperson-

ality

for

Heraclitus.24

ubjectivityas

merit

nly

n

the

degree hat

the

logos

peaks

hrough

he

subject.

We

areto

follow

what

s

universal,

hat

is

common

o

all. The

logos

provides

hat,

ven

though

he

majority

ive

as if

they

had a

law of

understanding

eculiar

o

themselves.

his

objec-

tivityf the

ogos ould

nlyhave been een

by

Heraclitus s

dialectical

nnature.t is notarbitraryrblind, ut s thecommonawofthe

mind r-

rived t

in

family

ouncil

round

nd

through

hefire,

harmony

chieved

through

he

concert

f

opposing

iews.25

t

was

the

beautiful,

any-sided

understandinghat an

be

achieved

hrough

trife.

As

dialectical,

t is

also full

of

potential,

ven

as

the

meeting

f

mind

on

mind

s

volatile

with

ndless

otential.

Mindor

soul

has

no

limit,

or

does

the aw

expressed

n

it.26

Not

only

s

there

o

limit

o

the

objectivity

of

the

ogos,

but

the

objectivity

hat s

present

s

a

growing,

ntensifying

kindoforderingfthings. he soul has its own aw that ncreasesnd

grows.27

ind s

dialectical

ecause t

is

dynamic,

thingn

becomingx-

tensively

s

well

as

intensively.

or

Heraclitus,

eality

s a

growing,

eep-

ening,

ntensifying,

ontrapuntal

ort

f

thing.

e

asserted

hat t

was like

the

hearth-fire.n

that

nalogy, e

gave

us

a key

o

his

metaphysics.

Northwestern

tate

College,

ouisiana.

19

r.

50.

20Fr.

1.

21 Fr.

10.

22

Fr. 54.

23

Fr.

90.

24

Fr.

2,

50.

25Fr.

8.

26Fr.

45.

27Fr. 115.

This content downloaded from 200 16 5 202 on Sat 25 Jan 2014 18:16:14 PM


social roots of the heraclitean metaphysics

Documents