Heraclitus

Η διδακτική αυτή προσέγγιση αφορά στο σχεδιασμό και την υλοποίηση της διδασκαλίας στο πλαίσιο ενός μαθήματος φιλοσοφίας σχετικά με τις θεωρίες της γνώσης στη Β΄ Γενικού Λυκείου,  με  βάση  το διδακτικό  βιβλίο  Αρχές  Φιλοσοφίας  στο  πλαίσιο  του  αναλυτικού προγράμματος.  Πιο  συγκεκριμένα,  θα  προσπαθήσουμε  να  προτείνουμε  τον  εμπλουτισμό του κεφαλαίου 3: Αναζητώντας τη γνώση, ενότητα τρίτη: Θεωρίες για την πηγή της γνώσης, χρησιμοποιώντας  στοιχεία  θεωρίας  της  γνώσης  και  της  αντίληψης  των  Προσωκρατικών.  Στόχος  μας  είναι  να  εμπλουτίσουμε  το  κεφάλαιο  αυτό  με  στοιχεία  προσωκρατικής  φιλοσοφίας ως παλαιότερης χρονολογικά και προϋπάρχουσας εκείνης της Κλασικής εποχής  και των Νεοτέρων χρόνων.

Both for Kant and for Nietzsche, aesthetics must not be considered as a systematic science based merely on logical premises but rather as a set of intuitively attained artistic ideas that constitute or reconstitute the sensible perceptions and supersensible representations into a new whole. Kantian and Nietzschean aesthetics are both aiming to see beyond the forms of objects to provide explanations for the nobility and sublimity of human art and life. We can safely say that Kant and Nietzsche used the dualities of the beautiful/sublime and Apollonian/Dionysian to advocate their general philosophical worldview, and that the initial formation (in Observations and The Birth of Tragedy) and final dissolution (in the Critique of Judgment and Zarathustra and other later works) of these dualities are determined by the gradually established telos of their philosophical endeavor. Therefore, by observing the evolution of these so-called dualities, Kaplama gathers important clues as to how Kant's and Nietzsche's aesthetics transformed into different ways to affirm human art and life. On the one hand, Kaplama argues, the Dionysian came to be the heart and soul of Nietzschean aesthetics and ethics, and the Apollonian (or the formal drive of individuation) was reduced into a mere aesthetic criterion. On the other, Kant treats the sublime (which is originally an idea-producing feeling and/or judgment) as a mere appendix to his Critique of Judgment and aesthetic theory teleologically reducing it into its possible moral consequences. This is why Schopenhauer calls the sublime " by far the most excellent thing in the Critique of Judgment " which touches on the real problem of aesthetics very closely but does not provide a real solution for it. Kant's forced teleological move is to make his theory of aesthetic judgment stand as a 'reaffirmation' of the www.cosmosandhistory.org 166

Eraclito e Parmenide sono allarmati dell’arrivo dell’eone del disfacimento.
Mentre noi moderni pensiamo con Jung che sotto l’io e la coscienza si apra l’immenso territorio dell’onnipotente inconscio, Eraclito pensa l’esatto rovescio: che l’incoscienza siamo noi e l’io nostro e che sotto di noi la vera realtà è l’immenso territorio di un’onnipotente ragione.
Messo a contatto con il pensiero moderno, Eraclito lo fa letteralmente esplodere; al suo cospetto la modernità si sbriciola.

This article presents a strategy for introducing Presocratic thought to students in a manner that is both engaging and relevant. The first section addresses students' reactions to the claim that the Presocratics were the first philosophers. The second section considers how the fragmentary state of Presocratic thought does not hinder its comprehension. The third section proposes a classroom exercise for testing the scientific merits of each of the Presocratic theories. The final section proposes the use of a mock trial as a means of applying the materialist approach introduced by the Presocratics to contemporary debates about free will and determinism.

Ogni cosa è per estinguere un debito. Un debito contratto con l’uno.
Ogni cosa sostituisce e ripaga il fuoco e il fuoco sostituisce e ripaga ogni cosa. Il fuoco è creditore verso ogni cosa e ogni cosa è in debito verso il fuoco.
Il fuoco rappresenta l’uno e le cose sono l’uno perché sono il debito che corrisponde al suo credito.
La vita cosmica è scambio di debiti e crediti che si ripagano fino alla fine.
Plotino è l’ultimo grande filosofo del mondo antico, dopo Platone e Aristotele, a pensare Eraclito. Egli richiama il passo in relazione al divenire come debito verso l’uno e in particolare in riguardo al destino dell’anima.
La caduta dell’anima nella condizione corporea è la scivolata nel samsara, sotto l’imperio del divenire incessante, trattenuta da eredità pesanti che la tirano giù. Lo scambio oro–merci e fuoco–enti viene evocato nel contesto del disagio dell’appesan¬timento dell’anima attratta in basso da gravami drammatici.
L’emancipazione dai vincoli del samsara–incarnazione comporta il pagamento di un riscatto.

Aristotle is one of the important sources for studying pre-platonic Philosophers, among whom Heraclitus was the subject of Aristotle's main focus. His focus on Heraclitus was most importantly for the reason that Heraclitus was, as Plato states, the Intellectual godfather of Sophists and according to Aristotle, the Intellectual godfather of Plato himself. Aristotle therefore sought to make fundamental critiques of doctrines of Heraclitus and to thereby attack foundations of sophistic and platonic thoughts as well. This paper aims firstly to show the domains in which the doctrines of Heraclitus influence on doctrines of Sophists and Plato's thoughts. it seems that Heraclitus' attempt to reject authenticity of sensible and particular things convinced Sophists in their idea that there is no truth, and made Plato to claim that, since there is no truth in sensible and particular things, one should search for another container which would, based on doctrines of Parmenides, provide degrees of solidarity in order for one to acquire science and knowledge. Plato introduced the container to his theory of Ideas. After examining the influence of Heraclitus on Sophists and Plato, the paper then looks at Aristotle's critiques of two famous doctrines of Heraclitus, namely the doctrine of Universal Flux and that of Identity of Opposites, and demonstrates which particular thoughts of platonic ideas or sophistic paradoxes can be the target of the criticisms. it seems that criticisms endeavor to imply that sensible and particular things have some sort of solidarity. Sophistic doctrines will thereby be rejected altogether and platonic doctrines on his Ideas and his creation of their container will be pointless.

Doubts beneath an Aldine leaf – Inger Christensen and Heraclitus

In an essay veiled in doubt I trace the deep connections between the written thinking of the early Greek philosopher Heraclitus and Danish poet Inger Christensen. Especially regarding the unity of opposites and the idea that all is one under change.

Published in Aiolos – journal for literature, theory and aesthehics, 64–65 2019. ISSN: 1400-7770

Editors: Niklas Haga and Håkan Trygger.

Text in Swedish.

Heraclitus (535-475 B.C.) was a pre-Socratic philosopher who held unique views on ontology (what things exist) and metaphysics (first principles of things). He is probably best known for his doctrine that everything is in the process of becoming. The Ionian famously declared that you can never step in the same river twice. All is moving. Everything is in flux.

In the ancient world Heraclitus is known for five doctrines: (1) fire is the source of all things; (2) there are periodic episodes of world conflagration; (3) everything is in flux, in constant motion; (4) the opposites are identical; and (5) in consequence of (3) and (4), Heraclitus violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. Modern critics have refuted (1) and (2) and challenged the other doctrines, making Heraclitus a constancy theorist; but other scholars have defended him as a flux theorist holding (3), (4), and (5). I argue that it is possible to combine elements of both views—Heraclitus believes in both constancy and flux—in an interpretation that avoids the logical chaos of point (5). In criticizing his predecessors, Heraclitus opposes not Material Monism but the Generating Substance Theory, which already implies that elemental stuff change into each other. But he recognizes that if that is so, there is no privileged generating substance, only a lawlike sequence of changes. There is a unity of opposites, but not an identity; and flux at the level of elements is balanced by constancy of natural structures, including that of the cosmos itself.  So there is both low-level flux and high-level constancy, and Heraclitus’ paradoxes are resolved without contradiction.

For the last 2,500 years literature has been attacked, booed, and condemned, often for the wrong reasons and occasionally for very good ones. ‘The Hatred of Literature’ examines the evolving idea of literature as seen through the eyes of its adversaries: philosophers, theologians, scientists, pedagogues, and even leaders of modern liberal democracies. From Plato to C. P. Snow to Nicolas Sarkozy, literature’s haters have questioned the value of literature―its truthfulness, virtue, and usefulness―and have attempted to demonstrate its harmfulness.

Literature does not start with Homer or Gilgamesh, William Marx says, but with Plato driving the poets out of the city, like God casting Adam and Eve out of Paradise. That is its genesis. From Plato the poets learned for the first time that they served not truth but merely the Muses. It is no mere coincidence that the love of wisdom (philosophia) coincided with the hatred of poetry. Literature was born of scandal, and scandal has defined it ever since.

In the long rhetorical war against literature, Marx identifies four indictments―in the name of authority, truth, morality, and society. This typology allows him to move in an associative way through the centuries. In describing the misplaced ambitions, corruptible powers, and abysmal failures of literature, anti-literary discourses make explicit what a given society came to expect from literature. In this way, anti-literature paradoxically asserts the validity of what it wishes to deny. The only threat to literature’s continued existence, Marx writes, is not hatred but indifference.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Words from Elsewhere
First Trial: Authority
Second Trial: Truth
Third Trial: Morality
Fourth Trial: Society
Conclusion
Notes
Acknowledgments
Index

This reconstruction of Plato’s biography was researched and written when I was at the London School of Economics Department of Government in 2004-05. As an attempt to reconstruct Plato’s life with more detail than had been done before, I hope it may be of interest.

Although it’s not complete and hasn’t been used for a publication, I intend to use this material at some point in the future. I welcome any comments. Feel free to write me at benjamin.bilski@periclesfoundation.org.

Επιτέθηκαν στη λογοτεχνία, τη λοιδόρησαν, την καταδίκασαν, με κάθε πρόσχημα και ανεξαρτήτως καθεστώτος, με τις καλύτερες ή τις χειρότερες προθέσεις, για λόγους αστείους ή ενίοτε και σοβαρούς. Εξόρισαν τους ποιητές και έκαψαν τα βιβλία τους ή τουλάχιστον προσπάθησαν να το κάνουν. Εδώ και 2.500 χρόνια, η λογοτεχνία γίνεται στόχος ποικίλων επικρίσεων και κατηγοριών, που διατυπώνονται από φιλοσόφους και θεολόγους, ιερείς και παιδαγωγούς, επιστήμονες και κοινωνιολόγους, βασιλείς, αυτοκράτορες, ή ακόμα και προέδρους. Από τον Πλάτωνα ώς τον Νικολά Σαρκοζί, τούτο το βιβλίο παρουσιάζει όλα τα στοιχεία που προσκομίστηκαν σε αυτή την εξωφρενική δίκη, συνθέτει την τοιχογραφία ενός απίστευτου κόσμου με γκροτέσκες και γελοίες φιγούρες, και αφηγείται, με τον τρόπο του, μια άλλη ιστορία της δυτικής λογοτεχνίας, από τις απαρχές της: γεμάτη βουή και μανία, ανοησία, υποκρισία και άγνοια, με τις έριδες και τις μάχες της, τις ήττες και τους
θριάμβους της, τους στρατηγούς, τους προδότες και τους ήρωές της.
Μέσα από το μίσος για τη λογοτεχνία αποκαλύπτεται το κρυφό πρόσωπο της ιστορίας της λογοτεχνίας: εκείνο που της δίνει ίσως το αληθινό της νόημα.

"Carter's music poses struggles of opposition, for instance in timbre (Double Concerto), space (String Quartet No. 3) or pulse (String Quartet No. 5). His preference for the all-interval tetrachords, 4–Z15 [0, 1, 4, 6] and 4–Z29 [0, 1, 3, 7], is also well known. From these facets of Carter's music, I develop a narrative interpretation of his Petrarch sonnet–inspired solo flute piece, Scrivo in Vento (1991). Specifically, I forge narrative pathways by imagining the two tetrachords as active agents opposed in competition. Previous Scrivo analyses (Capuzzo 2002; Childs 2006) stress continuity by revealing Q-transforms and common-note voice leading between the tetrachords. While acknowledging such features, my analysis emphasises oppositional struggle by tracing the tetrachords as separate entities which cooperate and conflict as they manoeuvre to outdo each other.

The analysis advances three theses: (1) it guides listening to and reading Scrivo in a way which resonates with Carter's concern for the aesthetics of oppositional struggle, his choice of a sonnet as inspiration and his affinity for all-interval tetrachords; (2) it shows that music-analytical detail can be organised into dramatic narratives by (a) projecting dramatic roles onto categories asserted by a formal theory and (b) treating the formal theory's relations metaphorically as actions performed by each role as the musical work unfolds; and (3) it shows how detailed pc-set analysis can support a Heraclitean view of music: a flux of opposing forces seeking and resisting unity."

In questo articolo ho cercato di mostrare come in Eraclito non si possa parlare di diritto naturale.  Al contrario, in Gorgia questo è possibile e nell’Epitaffio, pur mantenendo un lessico generico e per certi versi prossimo a quello eracliteo, Gorgia fonda la legge sulla rettitudine della ragione e dunque sul procedere logico dei ragionamenti. Il sofista presenta, così, una specifica istanza di diritto naturale. Nel caso di Eraclito, inoltre, il tentativo di individuare il diritto naturale e di voler strettamente riconoscerne la presunta specificità può addirittura risultare penalizzante: infatti, volendo indagare il nesso tra legge cosmica e legge umana, si rischia di perdere di vista la grande portata del riconoscimento che il filosofo fa proprio della legge in quanto comune.

Nella sapienza arcaica, la pazzia è pathos, patimento impresso da una forza superiore. Mentre il chiamato parla con il dio, gli altri vedono appena uno caduto in convulsioni.

Per l’orfico Eschilo è nel pathos–dolore che impariamo le cose decisive. Nella tragedia Agamennone il coro cantava «pathei mathos»: – apprendiamo l’essenziale dal pathos che sconvolge –.

La traduzione pressoché universale «l’opinione individuale (oiesis) è malattia sacra (epilessia)» intende che la credenza individuale sia un errore gnoseologico dovuto a un incidente fisiologico. Una simile lettura è unilaterale e sminuente perché non prende atto che, nella frase, la oiesis è presentata quale segno di un rapimento divino.

C. Cengiz Çevik, “Herakleitos’un Doğa Üzerine Kitabıyla İlgili Kaynaklar ve Yorumlar,” Felsefi Düşün 13 (2019): 121-133.

ÖZ

Presokratik filozoflar da kitaplar yazmıştır, ancak ne yazık ki bu kitapların hiçbiri günümüze tam olarak ulaşmamıştır. Sonraki yazarların eserlerinde, doksografi ve ansiklopedi metinlerinde bu kitapların bazılarından yapılan alıntılara ve bu kitaplara ait olduğu düşünülen veciz sözlere rastlamaktayız. Bununla birlikte bazı eserler de bu kitapların adı, içeriği ve dolaşıma geçip geçmediğiyle ilgili bilgiler vermektedir. Bu çalışmada antik kaynaklarda Herakleitos’a atfedilen ve yaygın olarak Περὶ φύσεως (Doğa Üzerine) adıyla anılan eserle ilgili tartışmalara yer verilmektedir. Bu kapsamda Antikçağ ile Ortaçağ’a ait tüm kaynaklar taranmıştır. Bunlar arasında Diogenes Laertius, Platon, Aristoteles, Sextus Empiricus, Strabon, Stobaios, Simplicius gibi önemli yazarlar bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca gerek Herakleitos’u, gerekse ondan sonraki felsefe geleneğinde bıraktığı izleri inceleyen saygın modern kaynaklardaki yorumlar gözden geçirilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, Herakleitos’a atfedilen tek eserle ilgili dağınık haldeki tüm kaynakları ve yapılan tüm tartışmaları bir bütün halinde sunup ele almaktır. Konusu itibariyle bir ilk olan bu çalışma, batı felsefe geleneğini derinden etkilemiş olan Herakleitos’un ünlü deyişlerinin olası kaynağıyla ilgili bundan sonra yapılacak olan başka kapsamlı çalışmalara da katkı sunacaktır.

Resumen: El presente artículo intenta acercarse al pensamiento de Heráclito a partir de la crítica que realiza el efesio a la tradición, principalmente literaria (Homero, Hesíodo, Arquíloco) y filosófica (Jenófanes y Pitágoras). Esto con el objetivo de mostrar: (i) el tono crítico con que Heráclito se refiere a la tradición cultural anterior a él, aunque no disociándose completamente de ella, (ii) cuál sería la causa probable de tales invectivas, y (iii) cómo esta causa muestra la " novedad " del pensamiento heraclíteo respecto de los ideales y valores anteriores. Abstract: This article attempts to approach the thought of Heraclitus from the critical review conducted by the Ephesian to previous tradition, mainly literary (Homer, Hesiod, Archilochus) and philosophical (Xenophanes and Pythagoras). This aims to show: (i) the critical tone that Heraclitus refers to the cultural tradition before him, though not completely dissociate from it, (ii) what would be the probable cause of such invective, and (iii) how this cause shows the " newness " of heraclitean thought to the ideals and previous values.

El presente trabajo se titula Areté y el ideal práctico del conocimiento; partimos del hecho de que el pensar filosófico tuvo como fundamento inicial en el sentido de la areté en la cultura griega, trasfondo que nos servirá para introducir la comprensión del modo del conocimiento, sobre la base de los argumentos que tanto Werner, Heidegger y Gadamer refieren al descubrimiento de los aspectos formales que subyacen en el lenguaje como elemento esencial para el pensar del hombre y la naturaleza.

El presente artículo, inspirado en la idea de Vernant de que la razón griega es “hija de la ciudad”, aborda el vínculo existente entre las circunstancias políticas y sociales de Éfeso y el pensamiento heraclíteo. En efecto, a partir de la tensión que se produjo entre la realidad histórica en que vivió Heráclito y el resultado de su propia reflexión sobre ella, el filósofo desarrolló una idea de organización de la ciudad, según la cual una pólis debería ser gobernada por el mismo principio rector del universo —i.e. el lógos—, lo cual, en términos prácticos, se traduciría en un modelo político monárquico.

table of contents

Preface
Sources
Various Translations of the Fragments
Life of Heraclitus
Dark Philosopher

Thoughts:
(1) Persian Translations of the Fragments
(2) Logos
(3) Cosmology
(4) Ethics
(5) Epistemology
(6) Political Philosophy
(7) The Capital Point of Heraclitus' Philosophy

Effects
(1) Zoroastrian Religion
(2) Plato on Heraclitus
(3) Aristotle on Heraclitus
(4) Arabic Philosophers on Heraclitus
(5) Hegel and Heraclitus
(6) Nietzsche and Heraclitus
(7) Popper's Criticism

Persian Translations of the Greek Text of the Fragments of Heraclitus,  With Notes

Appendix
(1) Persian Translations of the 'Life of Heraclitus' by Diogenes Laertius
(2) Heraclitean Terms
(3) Final Note

In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius repeatedly presents a disjunction between two conceptions of the natural world. Either the universe is ruled by providence or there are atoms. At 4.3, we find perhaps its most succinct statement: ἀνανεωσάμενος τὸ διεζευγμένον τό⋅ ἤτοι πρόνοια ἢ ἄτομοι (recall the disjunction: either providence or atoms). The formulation of the disjunction differs; at 7.32, being composed of atoms is contrasted with a stronger sort of unity (ἕνωσις) that may survive death. In 10.6 and 11.18 Marcus simply offers φύσις (nature, construed in the Stoic manner as providentialist and causally efficacious) in opposition. On the surface, the contrast between the theory of atomism and the acceptance of providence seems to not warrant the term ‘disjunction’; it seems possible to accept both atomism and a causally determined providential universe. Yet, it is agreed on all sides, in the recent literature, that the relevant contrast for Marcus is not between the atomist and the...

A long chapter for The War of Appearances: Transparency, Opacity, Radiance (V2_Publishing, 2016) building on the findings of “Charis and Radiance,” an essay published two years earlier. It discusses the inherent connection between visibility and radiance within the framework of Plato’s sun model as the source of reality.

The first part of the thesis is about various issues relating to the Unity of Opposites in Heraclitus. The second part is about the modern linguistics of antonymy and Jerrold J. Katz' semantic theory. There is a parallel drawn between the topics of the two parts in that there are similarities both between the theories of opposition that Heraclitus and Katz' rejected, and between the solutions that they proposed to their problems regarding opposition.

Nessun tentativo di tramonto può andare in porto.

Il «non tramontante mai» ha il potere di impedire ogni eclisse; nessuno può scendere nell’ombra sfuggendo una volta per tutte; ognuno è rivelato, riconosciuto, giudicato.

L’intramontabile non sopporta che qualcuno o qualcosa si nasconda, sente ostile il suo sottrarsi, non gli è indifferente, lo punge da dentro e non lo sopporta perché l’insidia riguarda la sua intima costituzione.

Nondimeno c’è sempre qualcuno o qualcosa che deve nascondersi e illudere. Infatti, inconscio e irrazionale sono integranti stretti dell’inquieta harmonie del cosmo.

La dicotomia identità/contraddizione vede un prevalere del primo termine nella logica classica, che esclude la contraddizione. Tra il Settecento e la prima metà dell’Ottocento la situazione si rovescia. Se Kant dimostra l’inevitabilità della contraddizione per il pensiero, Hegel fa della contraddizione addirittura uno dei cardini del proprio pensiero: non soltanto “tutte le cose sono in se stesse contraddittorie”, ma precisamente la capacità di sostenere/concepire la contraddizione diviene il grande discrimine tra le diverse strutture del reale e tra le diverse categorie del pensiero.

Heraclitus’ work raised many questions among his contemporaries and subsequent generations of researchers. If one understands it as a cosmology in the Milesian tradition, then the manifold sayings about people, the state and god, which seem to have no place in a pure natural doctrine, are astonishing. If one understands it the other way round, as an enlightenment of the human world, then the observations of the cosmic dynamics appear as foreign bodies. If one looks alternatively within the work for an approach for the connection of the mentioned aspects, then Heraclitus’ emphasis on self-enquiry catches the eye. In this study I would like to approach Heraclitus’ thinking about this track by three larger steps. In the first step I will reconstruct the problem situation (1) which humans can overcome, according to Heraclitus, by self-enquiry. In the second step I follow Heraclitus’ self-enquiry concerning the cosmos (2), in order to examine, in the third and last step, its understanding of humans (3) by the dimensions psyché, logos and ethos. Psyché seems to be understood as a collective term for human potentials in need of development, which transcend and shape his immediate world relationship. Logos is shown on human and cosmos as a mental activity and spiritual movement that, by analysing connections, creates unity in diversity and thereby clarifies and, if necessary, also changes the meaning and relationship of things to each other. The right ethos is finally realized by a human being who chooses a life in constant, self-increasing movement. This human corresponds to the principle of the cosmos established by Heraclitus and therefore lives κατὰ φύσιν.

Si bien Freud quizás no haya estudiado a Kierkegaard, Lacan, en algún seminario o escrito, recomendó a sus discípulos, que bien valía dar una revisadita a la obra del filósofo danés y, a raíz, de un grupo de estudio sobre una obra de Juan David Nasio, que se titula "¿Por qué repetimos siempre los mismos errores?", hago un texto en el que intercalo a los autores del título de mi artículo más otros filósofos griegos y modernos.

Thr reconstructor of the latest version of the Greek text (2011) divided its French translarion en regard into seven parts subdivided each according to its various themes. The other translations into modern languages followed suit giving the wrong impression that Heraclitus had had recourse to a preliminary plan. The first translation into English is free from this defect and meant to show that Heraclitus' text had rather been continuous throughout just as his subject matter. His book does fall indeed into parts and themes but this is not due to deliberate composition but must rather have come spontaneously as a reflextion of the very structure of his vision of the world. Since this structure would be a part of his message, it also deserves being shown. Here it consists of an Introduction and nine parts:
Sphragis and Proem about Justice and Logos (0-9);
Α’  Against Human Stupidity (10-50)
B'  About the City (51-66)
Γ'  About Knowledge (67--105)
Δ’  About the Divine Law (106-141)
E'  Against Unlawful Rites (142-153)
Z'  About the Fiery World (154-174)
H'  About the Pathis of the Elements (175-186)
Θ'  About the Ambient and the Souls (187-214)
I'  About Heaven and the Meteors.