Talk:Heraclitus

Mysterious article, who knows where from?

• Note: the following information was entered anonymously on January 1, 2005:

Enduring Epigrams

Exploring the fragmented works of Heraclitus of Ephesus is a challenging task. This Greek philosophical orator and writer lived in the late 6th century B.C. near Miletus, the birthplace of philosophy (Graham 1). Overtime, most of his works were destroyed; what remains are epigrammatic and prophetic passages reflective of his original, intuitive thought.

Fortunately, many of Heraclitus’ thought-provoking phrases are intertwined in the works of subsequent philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Heidegger. His concepts were frequently the catalyst that generated additional exploration and theory by these esteemed thinkers and they currently provoke many modern men and women with the same intensity. In this holistic light, I will explicate the most prominent and enduring fragment attributed to Heraclitus, briefly illustrate how Heraclitus affected Plato’s search for “certain knowledge” and I will vigorously demonstrate how Heraclitus’ contributions continuously engage us to vet our tenets and reflect upon the meaning (and composition) of our changing lives.

During the 6th century B.C. around Ephesus and Miletus, there was a significant paradigm shift occurring with scholars, “a new freedom of intellectual inquiry […] permitted thinkers, who possessed the courage and the intelligence, to explore alternative explanations for the presence of the world, for human intelligence, for social and economic order, and for the role of divinity in human life” (Geldard I). During this transition period, these thinkers were known as “truth-tellers,” they were “instigators” as well “investigators” (I). They sought to discover “the stuff of which the world was made” (Haxton XI). Often these investigators who exposed and disclosed the truth, and who challenged deeply held philosophical beliefs, were summarily eliminated. These “truth-tellers” therefore opted for the safer title of “Lover of Wisdom or philosopher” (Geldard 2).

Scholars have unearthed between sixty (IX) and one hundred thirty (Robinson 207) aphoristic fragments potentially created by the philosopher Heraclitus. Each fragment is capable of standing alone, on its own merit; although, most are interconnected and interrelated providing a big-picture view of “the three sections [of philosophy] - physics, ethics, and politics-in which the work was divided” (Gomperz 63). This unofficial collection of paradoxical and confounding verses is reminiscent of Heraclitus’ obscure writing style. His works were so difficult for fellow citizens to understand and interpret he was frequently referred to as the “Riddler” (Hooker 1). Unfortunately, although much of his tone and inflection have been lost, his phrases still provide an invigorating mental exercise to contemporary readers. His cryptic style stimulates one to contemplate and meditate beyond traditional dimensions of meaning. As an example, he advises us that “Nature loves to hide” and “You will not find the unexpected unless you expect it; for it is hard to find, and difficult” (Lamprecht 120). {A current book written by Roger Von Oech, “Expect the Unexpected Or You Won’t Find It-A Creativity Tool Based On The Ancient Wisdom Of Heraclitus” further explores Heraclitus’ creative spirit.}

In modern language, the sagacious Heraclitus propels motivated readers to think “out-of-the-box.” If you dissect and digest his words of wisdom, you will find that Heraclitus challenges us to think beyond our own perceptions and sensory inputs; beyond our finite, visible, materialistic world and into “the bright light of original truth” (Geldard 23). He encourages us to examine and explore the interconnectedness of opposites (hot/cold, war/peace, good/evil) and the interdependent nature of systems such as “energy is the essence of matter” (Haxton XIX) and “Things grasped together: things whole, things not whole being brought together, being separated; consonant, dissonant. Out of all things comes one thing, and out of one thing all things” (Robinson 15). Heraclitus in essence provides us with a “vision of the nature of things and the truth of the world we live in” (Haxton XVI).

Furthermore, Heraclitus fundamentally creates radical cognitive dissonance in enlightened and receptive minds. He employed numerous linguistic elements of style in his works such as: similes, metaphors, paradox, proverbs and riddles to enchant his readers and to capture their creative imagination and arouse their academic interest. Each individual reader is uniquely affected by Heraclitus’ statements, the common bond being, that he challenges all readers to think. Most of Heraclitus’ phrases can be applied to multiple topics and are subject to interpretation based on the reader’s education, experience, and open-mindedness. Scholars suggest that his fragments were designed to appeal to “an active and mature mind” (Wheelwright 66) and the “fit and few” (Gomperz 61). Over “2,500 years later, they retain their freshness, relevance, and-yes! The power to stir our minds” (Von Oech 3).

Unfortunately, readers that maintain a pervicacious, narrow and uninquisitive imagination will simply not be touched by his inspiring magic. I believe that if a person simply reads the statement and does not take the time to deeply ponder its subliminal meaning, the underlying message will remain submerged. “Socrates himself, when asked if he had read Heraclitus, replied that although what he had understood impressed him, it would take a Delian diver to comprehend the rest. The pearl hunters from the island of Delos were famous for diving great depths and holding their breath for long periods in order to bring valued treasures to the surface. The fragments as treasures are deep, hidden, tightly held, and elusive” (Geldard 10).

After reading fragments that are attributed to Heraclitus in several books, it appears the passage of time and varied translations have taken their toll. Since the phrases are worded slightly differently in each volume, discrepancies arise as to a fragment’s original structure and meaning. His most famous simile that results in a vivid visualization was translated by several authors into several similar phrases including: You may not enter the same rivers twice; for other waters pour in upon them. (qtd. in Lamprecht 122) It is not possible to step twice into the same river…it scatters and again comes together, and approaches and recedes. (qtd. in McKirahan 122) It is impossible to step twice into the same river…it scatters and regathers, comes together and dissolves, approaches, and departs. (qtd. in Waterfield 41) Upon those who step into the same rivers different and again different waters flow. (qtd. in Reale 49) This last quote is frequently recognized as the most genuine phrase. A modern, condensed version is “all things are flowing” or panta rhei (Kirk 189).

There is considerable disagreement among scholars as to the underlying meaning of this fragment. Was his intent to focus on the constant change or flux within an object or more specifically; was his intent to graphically illustrate an ecological system reflective of his belief of the interconnectedness of sophisticated systems? Was Heraclitus highlighting the observation that there is some underlying stability in change, namely, a being’s identity? (The river was constantly changing, and yet, it is still the “same” river. As we participate in life we are fundamentally the same being although transformed by education and experience.) Some scholars theorize that Heraclitus was illustrating his concept of the “unity of opposites” that the river is the same and yet different river (Cohen 4).

Heraclitus did not provide a detailed explanation of this, or any of his statements; he requires the reader to interpret his wisdom. I believe he causes us to ponder all three concepts: universal flux, identity (connectivity) and unity. Several of his other fragments illustrate that Heraclitus was aware of these theories: “Everything flows and nothing abides; everything gives way and nothing stays fixed” is an awareness of flux (qtd. in Wheelwright 70). “Soul is the vaporization out of which everything else is composed; moreover it is the least corporeal of things and is in ceaseless flux, for the moving world can only be known by what is in motion” is an awareness of an object’s identity or composition (qtd. in Wheelwright). “Out of all things can be made a unity, and out of unity, all things” is an awareness of unity (qtd. in Catan 50).

Heraclitus was widely known for his concept of perpetual motion or flux. He believed that all things are constantly changing and transforming, that there is no stability or permanence in the world. Heraclitus “ascribed to matter an unceasing transmutation of forms and qualities” (Gomperz 66). This ontological position that everything is changing and everything is in flux caused ancient philosophers to question how they could ever know anything.

This skepticism and frustration about our material world (reality) and its constant change, lead Plato to search for certain (unchanging) knowledge (Kenny 205). Plato incorporated Heraclitus’ concepts into his own philosophical thought processes directed toward finding a true, unchanging, reliable world. Subsequently, Plato created an invisible, but very real (and famous) world of “Forms.”

Plato documents his interpretation and knowledge of the Heraclitean flux principle in his work (Cratylus) by stating “All things move and nothing remains, and likening existing things to the flow of a river he says that you could not step twice into the same river” (qtd. in McKirahan 142). Furthermore, in his work Theaetetus, “he repeats that in the view of ‘Homer and Heraclitus and all that crowd’ all things move ‘like streams’” (qtd. in Guthrie 201). McKirahan also documents a report from Aristotle; apparently Plato “as a young man became familiar with Cratylus and the Heraclitean doctrines that all sensible things are always flowing and there is no knowledge of them” (142). Scholar Hans-Georg Gadamer states “[t]his insight into the unreliability of all things… without a doubt, inspired Plato’s thinking…” (209). Plato was clearly aware of and affected by Heraclitus and his flux doctrine.

According to author Jerold W. Apps, “The old way of thinking assumes that change is the only constant in a rapidly changing world. The emerging way of thinking assumes that change itself is changing” (Apps 36). I firmly believe Heraclitus would support and defend this latter assertion. He definitely illustrated “all things are flowing” (Kirk 189) and “everything is in flux” not simply (quantitatively) a few, several or many things. Heraclitus’ “old way of thinking” illustrated in the river fragment in fact comprehensively encompassed the metamorphosis of “change” itself. Heraclitus indubitably utilized this river epigram as an example to illustrate change and the laws of nature; however, “he is less concerned with […] the laws of nature than with inner truth and the discovery of the ways in which human beings can effect a kind of alchemical transformation of their being to bring that being into communion with the Supreme or Absolute Self” (Geldard 9). The definition of “transformation” in the traditional theological context refers to a “transfiguration and reformation; [whereas], in the inner traditions, the term more nearly suggests fundamental change in perception and outlook, combined, perhaps, with a fundamental change in being, which in turn is connected to a more or less permanent alteration in consciousness” (11). This “sound thinking” concept is illustrated by Heraclitus’ universal statement that “All people have a claim to self-knowledge and sound thinking” (qtd. in Robinson 67). Although critical examination of related epigrams tends to indicate that Heraclitus did not consider this a concrete possibility, “his commitment to the principle is in itself remarkable” (157).

In our efforts to garner this “sound-thinking ability,” Heraclitus clearly believed that “A lot of learning does not teach understanding” (qtd. in Robinson). His proposition purports those merely accumulating facts “does not automatically produce insight or understanding, though serious, patient, and open-minded research is of course an absolute sine qua non for the final acquisition of such insight” (106).

This serious, engineered and reverse engineered approach to understanding life and its many macro and micro systems (as well as interrelated components) and to performing critical self-analysis of our numerous beliefs is the foundation of Marquette University and the bedrock of our ORLE 123 Ethics in Leadership Class.

Through our active discussions and studies, I have composed one challenge to offer to Heraclitus, does he concur with Stephen R. Covey that “People can’t live with change if there’s not a changeless core inside them. [That] the key to the ability to change is a changeless sense of who you are, what you are about and what you value” (qtd. in Apps 72)?

If Heraclitus posed that question to me, I would extend Covey’s hypothesis one step further by inserting an additional term into his quote. This word, success, is personally defined as surviving and thriving; therefore, “the key to the ability to [successfully] change is a changeless sense of who you are, what you are about and what you value.” These core beliefs guide our thoughts and actions and can provide us with the substance of stone and source of fuel for self-expansion. Heraclitus stated that “All people ought to know themselves and everyone be wholly mindful” (qtd. in Haxton 71). He poignantly encourages us to examine our lives, to honestly get to know ourselves.

I firmly believe Heraclitus’ ancient wisdom has transcended through time and challenges us today, right now, to seek connected knowledge and to vigorously search for life’s enduring truths through a new, wide angle lens of awe, empathy and self-understanding.

Works Cited

Apps, Jerold. Leadership for the Emerging Age: Transforming Practice in Adult and Continuing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc, 1994.

Cohen, S. Marc. “Heraclitus.” 2002. U of Washington. 29 Nov. 2004 <http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/heracli.htm>.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. “Heraclitus Studies.” The Presocratics after Heidegger. Ed. David C. Jacobs. New York: State U of New York Press, 1999.

Geldard, Richard. Remembering Heraclitus. Lindisfarne Books, 2000.

Gomperz, Theodor. Greek Thinkers. Great Britain: William Clowers and Sons Limited, 1964.

Graham, Daniel. “Heraclitus.” 2002. U of Tennessee. 29 Nov. 2004 <http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/heraclit.htm>.

Guthrie, W. “Flux and Logos in Heraclitus.” The Pre-Socratics: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Alexander P. D. Mourelatos. Princeton: Princeton U Press, 1974.

Haxton, Brooks. Fragments: The Collected Wisdom of Heraclitus. New York: Penguin, 2001.

Hooker, Richard. “Greek Philosophy: Heraclitus” 1995. Washington State U. 29 Nov. 2004 <http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/HERAC.HTM>.

Kenny, Anthony. Ancient Philosophy: A New History of Western Philosophy. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.

Kirk, G. “Natural Change in Heraclitus.” The Pre-Socratics: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Alexander P. D. Mourelatos. Princeton: Princeton U Press, 1974.

Lamprecht, Sterling, ed. The Early Philosophers of Greece. New York: D. Appleton- Century Co, 1935.

McKirahan, Richard. Philosophy Before Socrates. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co,1994.

Reale, Giovanni. From the Origins to Socrates: A History of Ancient Philosophy. Ed. John Catan. Albany: State U Of New York, 1987.

Robinson, T.M. Heraclitus Fragments: A Text and Translation With a Commentary by T. M. Robinson. Toronto: U of Toronto Press, 1987.

Von Oech, Roger. Expect the Unexpected (Or You Won’t Find It). New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Waterfield, Robin. The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and Sophists. Great Britain: Oxford U Press, 2000.

Wheelwright, Philip, ed. The Presocratics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co, 1975.

Mysterious Article- what should we use?

The information above is all very interesting, and is a wonderful essay on Heraclitus' philosophy, but in my opinion tends to be a bit non-encyclopedic and POV (In this holistic light, I will explicate the most prominent and enduring fragment...). Also it focusses too much on just one fragment. In contrast, our current site examines a wide range of fragments and steers clear of too much commentary or super-imposing later ideas back on Heraclitus. But it's not half as well-written. Anyone fancy the task on coming up with a happy medium between the two? Bunniwhoops 12:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to rewrite this article. I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, so would like advice as to the best way to proceed. For example, if I write a draft to propose as a replacement, would I post it here in the Discussion as our anonymous author has done? Toad42 04:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's probably from here (2004) http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2004/12/15/experience_diary_awareness_of_senses_people_and_things.html --JimWae (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong bust

You got wrong face here- this is Democritus from Abdera (see, for instance, http://www.funsci.com/fun3_en/democritus/democritus.htm ). Heraclitus has a more "punker" look, similar to Rasputin. Mir Harven 20:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Propose taking out Heidegger

I would like to propose taking out the reference to Heidegger's idea of an "original experience of Being" common to both Heraclitus and Parmenides, since it is really more about Heidegger than Heraclitus. The idea that there is such an experience is not shared by most non-Heideggerian philosophers, and the idea that Heraclitus and Parmenides share a fundamental approach is not common to discussions of Heraclitus or ancient philosophy. Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Question value of Heraclitus in Fiction section

I question the value of the Heraclitus in Fiction section. Many writers have quoted a couple of Heraclitus's most well-known fragments. What is to be gained by mentioning them, unless perhaps they are among the most notable and influential writers in history? We could have dozens and dozens of them. Please see the discussion of "X in popular culture" on the Talk:Existentialism page. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of the reference and it adds very little. Either it can go or be expanded, but I can't think of any other literary references... — goethean ॐ 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Me neither, and I'm in favor of taking it out. That is, I bet there are dozens of novels that quote Heraclitus to the effect that one can't step twice into the same river, but even if we knew all of them, what would be the point of including them. By the way, one of my favorite points in the history of philosophy was Heralictus's student -- I can't remember who -- who said that you can't step even ONCE into the same river (because if everything is flux, then there isn't a single river, etc.). Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fragment numbering

Is there a standard system we can agree on to number the fragments? I see that the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the DK system, but this doesn't correspond to the numbering in my Brooks Haxton text in hand. Haxton says he followed Ingram Bywater's topic-based grouping rather than H. Diels alphabetic arrangement. If we choose one system can someone having access to both set up a cross-reference table? --Blainster 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Hermann Alexander Diels which could be improved. For that matter so could Ingram Bywater. However, such a table would really go under an article of Pre-Socratic fragments would it not? I suppose you could have a table just for Heraclitus. It would have over 100 entries so it would use a lot of space. To combine it with the article on Heraclitus would push the space up over 100 kb I am sure. The grouping by topic is pretty subjective. The topic of many is difficult to decide. So in general what you propose is not an easy task. Maybe this frill is beyond us. But I would say if you really think it should be done why not do it yourself? It could be a "table of concordance, Heraclitean fragments". I notice several sites linked in the article attempt to duplicate Diels with their own arrangements. They have been at it for years and aren't done yet. Another approach would be to list the source numbers in each note referencing the fragment in the article. Since you would only ever reference 20 or 30 fragments that would shorten the task. Well. This needs more thought. It would be nice if we could just fiat! like the captain of the Enterprise and a thousand hands would pick up pen and do it but this is a volunteer organization and I don't see no volunteers handy. It's too much for me.Dave (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is exactly the same topic, but as it is there's a lot of DK numbers in the reference, and I had to resort to Google to figure out what that meant, so maybe someone could put a brief explanation in the 'Works' section? I'd do it myself, but I don't think looking it up on Google really gives me enough to say anything informative. 173.32.136.116 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, that was me. Not sure why WP keeps logging me out... Purplezart (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies

I'm deleting this: "He appears to have taught by means of small, oracular aphorisms meant to encourage thinking based on natural law and reason. The brevity and elliptical logic of his aphorisms earned Heraclitus the epithet "The obscure". The technique, as well as the teaching, is redolent of Zen Buddhism's koans."

Heraclitus did not teach by aphorisms. He wrote a book, and although all that remains of that book are fragments and quotations, that doesn't mean the intention was to write in such a way. I'm guessing whoever wrote this has been influenced by the scholar H. Diels, who put the fragments in an alphabetical order, and (with Nietzsche's Zarathustra in mind) claimed that the fragments should be conceived in an aphoristic style, and that Heraclitus set down his words in a notebook or philosophical journal, with no literary form linking them. However, the book that Heraclitus wrote disproves this; what is likely is that Heraclitus' structure was influenced by the poetry of Pindar and others, roughly contemporaneous with him. --Matthew 17:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If its a prevalent enough reading of Heraclitus, it should be mentioned (that is, the paragraph should remain, although, like the rest of Wikipedia, it needs references). If there are other interpretations (like the one you suggest), they should be mentioned, too, so long as there are references to back them up. -Smahoney 17:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without a copy of his book, we have no evidence to back up either idea. Still, worth writing both into the article and commenting that that's a debate. Fishy 10:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need evidence. We need references. So saying that there is a debate is fine, but showing different sides of the debate, with references to who took what position and said what where (in what book, etc.) is how we should go about doing that, not by making unreferenced assertions. -Smahoney 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Although Heraclitus' utilization of aphorism's as a means of teaching can not be proven, it should be noted that he was branded as "the obscure" or "the dark" by people who read his book, and not by our contemporaries to whom only those fragments are available. I read somewhere that, the Persian king who read his book wrote an invitation letter to him. The book was so obscure that he wanted Heraclitus to explain, but Heraclitus, it appears, has denied the royal invitation. Apparently he wanted, by the least, ordinary people to use their brains, he was a very demanding thinker. As to whether his technique was similar to Zen Buddhism's Koans; the Koans are paradoxical statements given by Zen masters to apprentices who live with these statements for the rest of their lives. I am not sure as to whether Heraclitus was in the same state of mind as the Zen masters, he was a philosopher. Iobacchy

Reception

I think a section of this nature would add greatly to the value of this article, such as thoughts from Nietzsche and various commentators, to portray his understatedly significant role in philosophy. Any takers? — ^ignis _scripta 18:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutement. I've already put in Popper's thoughts about Heraclitus. I believe 'twas Nietzsche who mused: "With the highest respect, I exclude the name of Heraclitus...But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction." --Knucmo2 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may say, I find Popper's view to be a disastrous oversimplification, but that is not at issue for presentation. We'll see how well this turns out—I've writ a small, expandable introduction for the new section. — ^ignis _scripta 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Igni, this kind of section is usually titled "influence" here on Wikipedia. On a different matter, you might take a look at the vocabulary used on other philosophy articles. "In-house" language (as used in professional journals) would be over the heads of most readers of an encyclopedia. Such terminology should be minimized, but if necessary, it should be linked or defined in the article. --Blainster 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, improvements are always welcome whatever they may be. — ^ignis _scripta 02:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"...he (Nietzsche) writes about Heraclitus "in whose proximity I feel altogether warmer and better than anywhere else. The affirmation of passing away and destroying, which is the decisive feature of a Dionysian philosophy; saying Yes to opposition and war; becoming, along with a radical repudiation of the very concept of being -- all this is clearly more closely related to me than anything else thought to date" (EH GT 3)" Well then what did Nietzsche's muse Schopenhauer think of Heraclitus? It seems, seeing how influenced Hegel's dialectic process was by Heraclitus, and how opposed to the idea Schopenhauer was and how drawn to the apathetic nihilism of Heraclitus he in turn was, that Heraclitus was an interesting paradoxical precursor to Schopenhauer & Hegel both. 4.255.49.114 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation of 'Panta Rhei' ?

Does anyone know? Especially the "rhei". Is that "RAY" or "RAH-AY". Seeing as it's what the philosophy of Heraclitus boils down to for a lot of people, it would be helpful to know.

There are several different pronunciation schemes for ancient Greek for English speakers. There's the reconstructed pronunciation, as described by W. Sidney Allen in '"Vox Graeca, there's the English school pronunciation, and there's the modern Greek pronunciation. I think it would be silly to put in all three pronunciation schemes, so I favour not putting in any at all. CRCulver 22:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A way to pronunce "rhei" is like "re" at the word "replay" agmpinia 14:46,20 August 2006 (UTC)

~~ Correct Pronounciation is: "panta r-e-i" (as though your saying: ray-ie) by ApplesnPeaches ~~

"Fragments"

Re FAMOUS. He is famous for expressing the notion that no man can cross the same river twice. I don't know who is famous for expressing this notion. Certainly not Heraclitus. And certainly none of the people who gave us the "fragments". But we know what Heraclitus would have answered this famous person: My dear friend, no man can step into the same river twice, but there's only one river that no man can cross twice.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree, though my agreement is a product of my opinion. Another opinion: this tone of discussion is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Kaweah 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re OPINION. So what's wrong with YOUR opinion, Kaweah? Socrates didn't ask Kahn, Reinhardt or Burnet for their opinions. Not if we take Plato's word for it. Or do you want to say, what was good enough for the Symposion is not good enough for a discussion in Wikipedia? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 10:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re TERMINOLOGY. It would be interesting to know who was the first to call the "fragments" fragments. They are, at best, quotations of interpretations of quotations. As a rule, they are interpretations of quotations of interpretations of quotations of interpretations. What a brilliant idea to give simple hearsay an academic title!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a better rule is that we cannot know for sure what these fragments are. --Kaweah 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re BETTER. But we do know what fragments are, Kaweah. If we could somehow recover all fragments, we would know exactly what Heraclitus wrote. Collecting more "fragments", however, would only add to the confusion. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Re DIOGENES LAERTIUS. He gave us roughly 20% of the text of our "fragments". So it pays to take a closer look at everything he has to say about Heraclitus. Only 9 pages (in Loeb), and all the "fragments" in the first 4. How considerate of him to make it so easy for the Professoren! But see for yourself what pearls can be found in the text. For example:

Heraclitus am I. Why do ye drag me up and down, ye illiterate? It was not for you I toiled, but for such as understand me ...

No better way to sum it up. Diogenes Laertius tells us that he has it from Hieronymus and that Hieronymus had it from Scythinus who had it straight from the horses mouth i.e. from someone who had heard someone else recite the epigram with his own ears. In other words, exactly the way all the other "fragments" came about. So why did this one not make the list? Go know, as we say in Switzerland.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest reading Diogenes L. He contributed much to what we know of Heraclitus, yet he proved himself an imperfect source, and sheer bulk ought not be a criterion for the authenticity of a source. As to the fragment that you cite, I think you do a fine job in explaining why it didn't make the list. Not all fragments share its documented poor pedigree. Furthermore, IMHO any fragment that begins with "Heraclitus am I" has got to be questioned. In any case, it isn't very useful. The message that it presents is not unlike what we think we may know of the man, but it doesn't help us much with his philosophy. --Kaweah 08:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re IMPERFECT. True, Kaweah, but that doesn't explain why any of them did make the list. Why should anyone put more trust in the authenticity of DK 22 A 1 (same source!) for example? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Panta Rhei?

I would at least like to see a reference for "Panta Rhei".
My understanding is that the origin of the term "Panta Rhei" is Plato's interpretation of Heraclitus' philosophy, and I also understand that Plato's "Panta Rhei" interpretation of Heraclitus is disputed. Charles Kahn, if I remember correctly, considers the notions of Logos, fire, conflict, unity, and wisdom (sophon) to be more genuinely Heraclitean. The phrase "Panta Rhei", so far as I know, cannot be traced to Heraclitus' fragments. I think that Kahn confirms this. I will be happy to provide references.
--Kaweah 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The source for "Panta Rhei" is Plato's Cratylus: "all things flow and nothing stands" (trans. Benjamin Jowett).
--Kaweah 00:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Coppleston writes, in "A History of Philosophy":

Heraclitus is known to many for the famous saying attributed to him, though apparently not his own: "All things are in a state of flux," πάντα ρεί. Indeed this is all that many people know about him. This statement does not represent the kernel of his philosophic thought, though it does indeed represent an important aspect of his doctrine... Heraclitus' original contribution to philosophy is to be found elsewhere: it consists in the conception of unity in diversity, difference in unity... For him the conflict of opposites, so far from being a blot on the unity of the One, is essential to the being of the One. In fact, the One only exists in the tension of opposites: this tension is essential to the unity of the One. (pp. 39-40)

--Kaweah 04:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles H. Kahn records, in "The Art and Thought of Heraclitus", the two best known interpretations of Heraclitus:

For Plato Heraclitus is the theorist of universal flux (panta rhei "all things flow") in contrast to Parmenides, the partisan of a fixed and stable reality. For Aristotle Heraclitus was a material monist who derived the entire physical world from fire as its underlying element. Both characterizations cast a long shadow over later readings of Heraclitus' text. (pg. 4)

Kahn appears to recognize a third classical interpretation of the Obscure One:

In their dogmatic way, and without his subtlety of thought and expression, the Stoics are the true Heracliteans of antiquity. (pg. 5)

In the late nineteenth century, J. Burnet came along with a new interpretation. Here Burnet is quoted by Kahn:

'The truth hitherto ignored [sc. by Heraclitus' predecessors] is that the many apparently independent and conflicting things we know are really one, and that, on the other hand, the one is also many. The "strife of opposites" is really an "attunement" (harmonia) ... Wisdom is ... a perception of the underlying unity of the warring opposites' (pg. 148)

According to Kahn:

For Heraclitus Karl Reinhardt ... showed how different views of his thought are projected according to the philosophic interests and presuppositions of each author who quotes him. (pg. 151)

This was not meant by Reinhardt to mean that Heraclitus is completely open to any arbitrary interpretation. It has simply become clear that a thorough study of the fragments sheds light on a philosophy that, without necessarily being seen as inconsistent, is too easily oversimplified. If we must strive to express the man's philosophy in a nutshell, we ought not too quickly apply the term panta rhei, as it appears to express a characteristic of Heraclitean thought that is, though true enough, most likely a corollary of the Heraclitean hypothesis.

--Kaweah 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless whether Heraclitus said something similar to this, it is very unlikely that he would have forumlated it so: Previously the heading "Panta rhei, everything flows" was incorrectly written "Ta panta rhei...'" with "Τα Πάντα ῥεῖ (ta panta rhei)" below it. I have edited this. Πάντα ῥεῖ is the grammatically correct form of the mistaken Τα Πάντα ῥεῖ. A Greek grammar or the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae will confirm this. Furthermore, even if the former were the case (that τα preceded πάντα), it would be written τά (and even then the verb would be conjugated differently). --Vidyadhara 12:02, 7 May 2011 (CET)

Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC ^Talk 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fire: material or metaphoric?

I have tagged for discussion the following statement in the main article:

... according to some interpretations [Eraclitus] uses fire — with its connotations of both Promethean/human "fire", and the cosmic fire outlined by contemporaneous pre-Socratics — as a metaphor rather than his solution to material monism, however the nature of the evidence is so sparse that it is difficult to substantiate this claim.

Comment: it is IMO impossible to provide a "citation" to support the affirmation that "fire" is metaphoric rather than material, when it has already been declared that "the evidence is so sparse that it is difficult to substantiate this claim".

Action: unless my a.m. comment is convincingly challenged, I am going to remove the "citation needed tag"

Miguel de Servet 11:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that what needs citing is not that fire is metaphoric, but rather that there are "some interpretations" of Heraclitus on which this is true. Which interpretations? Surely there are classics scholars out there who have written articles expressing this view which we can cite. --Jonathonjones 05:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Eraclitus’ change by random chance?

I have tagged for discussion the following statement in the main article:

[Eraclitus'] view on the random chance inherent in the universe is famously the direct opposite of Einstein's (in which he stated "God does not play dice with the universe"): "Time is a child moving counters in a game; the kingly power is a child's."

Comment: the above famous quotation (Fragment DK no. 52) does not imply that change happens by "random chance", but rather that it is unforseable, like a child's game.

Action: unless my a.m. comment is convincingly challenged, I will re-insert a "neutrality disputed" tag after the phrase "random chance inherent in the universe".

Miguel de Servet 11:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Marx' thoughts on Heraclitus?

It just seems to me that if Popper's ideas on Heraclitus and dialectics in general are given space, then why not discuss Marx and his thoughts on the same topic? I believe I'm too partisan to do that myself. I could do it, but I'd rip into Popper, whom I consider to have been an absolute charlatan, too much and too viciously to be "NPOV." Thank you.JBDay 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Heraclitus' influence on and reception by notable philosophers like Popper and Marx are definitely deserving of inclusion in the article. The views of said philosophers on dialectics in general are irrelevant however. If you have a source for Heraclitus' influence on Marx, why not state it so that some other editor might add it? Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 00:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Apparently the views of some charlatan on how Marx related to Heraclitus matter more than the actual views of Marx himself. I'm not "net-intent" as I used to be, so it may take awhile. JBDay 19:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to find anything that would fit Wiki's methods. Perhaps the Marx quote "All that is solid melts into air," a direct Heraclitus reference, would be a good starting point for someone who cares to try. By the way, Popper blamed Heraclitus for every bad thing in the world, I'd guess because he, Heraclitus, saw through the illusion of "choice." Good luck.JBDay 19:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Working on article

You might have noticed that I started work on this article and I did not come in on the turnip wagon yesterday (I watch too much film). What I am trying to do is start where the article is, actually, correct what is there if it can be corrected, replace what cannot. Above all I want to check out the refs and add the appropriate critical apparatus (the notes) in the proper format. Nice box, nice pic. Many of the references are sound but some go astray because the authors are only dabbling, or dallying, or whatever and didn't check it out. It seems to me I could write an article, using only those references, that would be totally false and yet validate everything with references. To be perfectly honest quite a bit a baloney has been written about Heraclitus and I want to steer away from baloney and make sure the article is primarily about Heraclitus. One thing I noticed about the mysterious article is that the language is very abstract and says little. There is no detail. It is not a good article, but, when I get done here I will check out what it says carefully to make sure I missed nothing I did not intend to miss. When you major in philosophy (I did not) the first thing you notice is the glib and slick. The idea is to say things to the students that sound intellectual but say nothing so they will be impressed but not be able to ask any questions because there is nothing really to ask about, and if they do manage a question, you can always embarrass the dickens out of them and make them feel stupid so they will not do it again. When I see the glib and the slick, it is going out!Dave 23:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Here goes the robust

Remember that glib slick I was just talking about? Well here it is:

"He was the first person in the Western world to create a robust philosophical system."

That seems to come from this location on the Internet: [1]. Well we aren't interested in talking selling here and whoever made that statement couldn't have done so from any knowledge of ancient philosophy and was counting on his audience not knowing any either. More formally I question the validity of this statement and its non-cited source so I am removing it to here where I hope it will remain.Dave 04:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Process philosophy

Our articles on this topic are in such bad shape I cannot tell whose term this is or what else it might be or mean. It seems to have to do with Alfred Lord Whitehead. But, this is like mixing apples and oranges. Whitehead is modern; Heraclitus, ancient. Let's not mix the two, hey? Heraclitus is not the founder of any modern school at all. There is a big gap of about 2500 years there with no continuity in between. Then suddenly he gets resurrected by Whitehead who does not really mean what Heraclitus means. Heraclitus is not "the first process philosopher". There was no school of process philosophers similar to the Academy. Let's not make one up, hey? All the other boxes treat their ancient philosophers as ancient philosophers and it is jarring to see this modern stuff thrown in there. Now, we already cover the influence of Heraclitus on "process philosophy" under the bulleted items. Let's not do it three or four times already. Much repeating is not going to get the reader to process philosophy any faster and anyway when he/she does get there he/she will only find a tangle of total confusion. So let's unconfuse Heraclitus and not make him part of the general slick leading to the general muddy bog. Process is process and flux is flux. I'm changing the box.Dave 04:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pyle biblio item

• Pyle, C. M. 1997. 'Democritus and Heracleitus: An Excursus on the Cover of this Book,' Milan and Lombardy in the Renaissance. Essays in Cultural History. Rome, La Fenice. (Istituto di Filologia Moderna, Università di Parma: Testi e Studi, Nuova Serie: Studi 1.) [Fortuna of the Laughing and Weeping Philosophers topos]

I encountered this item trying to do a Wiki specification for it. Well, yes. there is such a book. It happens to be mainly unavailable from any of the book sellers on the Internet. I believe it has gone out of print; it is, in other words, a rare and unavailable book. If you live in Massachusetts you can find it at Smith and Harvard college libraries. Period. Google is not going to tell us a thing about it, not even the title page, only the cover. The sellers they list are out of stock. There is no way the ordinary reader can access this book. I sure can't without an expensive trip (possibly more than one) and a big hassle from Wiedener. Now, the large number of titles on the entry must have struck you by now. I can straighten some of them out but not others without seeing a TOC or the book. Rather than leave it totally confusing or do it wrong I removed it to here. It is not actually used in the article. I'm tempted to say, "no big deal", but I am sure Cynthia worked very hard and had something significant to say. The article I dare say has an abundance of good references. But here is the entry and if you can do something with it by all means put it back in. Is this a collection of essays by different authors? Is Cynthia an essay author, general editor, or what? What is the name of the essay? What does that "topos" thing do? Are there any page numbers here? Give us a formal specification, will you?Dave 11:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The note on lasalle

Not so fast. You've thrown in a book in German without any pages or explanation at all. What's the reader supposed to do, learn German, then learn the old script, then read the whole book then figure out what part of it might pertain to Whitehead's "process?" No no, you show either that Lasalle uses the term - you can reference the page in German, but give a translation of the relevant sentence - or you can cite someone who calls Lasalle and Heraclitus process philosophers. You're trying to characterize Heraclitus as a "process philosopher" and that will not do. He was never so characterized. It doesn't belong up front and it is already in back. My suggestion is, before you try and work Heraclitus unto this "process philosophy", go back to the article on process philosophy and straighten that out. We need references and definitions there as well as a general clean-up. So, I have not removed your note but I have commented it out and asked you to make it understandable. The idea and vocabulary item of process is not native Greek and first you have to define your term and then you have to show how Heraclitus fits it or reference someone who does.Dave 16:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: would you mind using proper citations on books? Incidentally the book in German is downloadable Google Books. Maybe there's a translation downloabable or online, but that isn't my job, it is yours.Dave 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I find your comments to be creepy and hostile. I'd prefer to delete it altogether and not deal with it any further. Thanks, DBaba 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem creepy and hostile. I think you made the right decision. However, I do think you might enjoy working on Process philosophy - it seems to be referenced in a lot of articles and it seems to be in trouble so it could use a hand. What Wiki seems to want - and I agree - is to be concise but at the same time to detail out the statements, not just, hey read this book, but page and chapter, and also you should remember to assume the reader needs things defined and explained. This is not a technical journal. It is an English-language encyclopedia written at the level of "any reader." Oh by the way, it is against Wikipedia policy to call people names, such a creepy. It could get you blocked. But I forgive you; it is just that these classical articles should be written from a classical not a modernistic point of view and most modernists encountering classical have trouble with that. I know I did when I switched from engineering to classics but I got over it. The time vector is the other way around, from past to future, not future to past. I got to go now as I have to finish detailing this article and get on to the next classical article and I will make sure that process philosophy stays in here, maybe not up front, but under influences. Heraclitus influenced Whitehead. Whitehead did not influence Heraclitus. And don't bother to hurl any more invective, as I will not reply.Dave 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody start a new article

I removed this material from the article as it has nothing whatever to do with our Heraclitus but concerns Heraclitus of Halicarnassus. I grant you it should be in Wikipedia and there is nothing on it right now. So, someone should start a new article, Heraclitus of Halicarnassus. I'm not inclined to do it right now as I want to work on other things. I envision a short article perhaps quoting epigram of Callimachus and attendant circumstances and also the famous English translation and attendant circumstances. Apparently Strabo XIV and Diogenes Laertius IX.17 mention the main mainly also in connection with the poem. The MacKail edition of the anthology is downloadable Google Books. I imagine you would want link to Halicarnassus, Callimachus, Epigram and Greek Anthology among others. Someone with the inclination to do the research and detail it out should write the article. Best of luck.Dave 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The removed section:

Epitaph of Callimachus

There is a popular misconception that it was the famous philosopher whose death was lamented in an epitaph by Callimachus; the philosopher is thought to have died nearly two centuries before the head of the Alexandrian Library was born, and in Ephesus, far from Alexandria. The Heraclitus spoken of in the original as the speaker's "Halicarnasian friend" is probably Heraclitus of Halicarnassus (in Caria). The 'Nightingales' referred to below were a collection of poems. The translation by William Johnson Cory is a masterpiece in its own right. Included in his Ionica collection, it was set for choir by Charles Villiers Stanford:

They told me, Heraclitus, they told me you were dead,
They brought me bitter news to hear and bitter tears to shed.
I wept as I remembered how often you and I
Had tired the sun with talking and sent him down the sky.

And now that thou art lying, my dear old Carian guest,
A handful of grey ashes, long long ago at rest,
Still are thy pleasant voices, thy nightingales, awake;
For Death, he taketh all away, but them he cannot take.

Call for a new article

After days of careful pondering and work on the article I removed this topic:

(Right. Dao Pesdyn would be a far better ramification.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.13.217.223 (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"The Heraclitean emphasis on the nature of things and existence as one of constant change, expressed with language of polarity, is particularly reminiscent of another ancient philosophical tradition, that of Taoism: the Tao (or "the Way") often refers to a space-time sequence, and is similarly expressed with seemingly-contradictory language (e.g., "The Way is like an empty vessel / that may still be drawn from / without ever needing to be filled"). Indeed, parallels have been drawn between the fundamental concepts of the logos (as it was understood during Heraclitus's time) and the Tao."

This is parallel to the removal of the Christian logos. Here are my reasons. First of all it doesn't fall under any of the topics currently in or planned to be in the article. It is not an influence of any sort. There is no connection at all between ancient Greek and ancient Chinese thought. While some authors have argued for a pre-socratic influence on metaphysical buddhism in Pakistan as a result of Alexander's conquest of that region, there is nothing at all like it for China. In the time of Heraclitus the two cultures were not aware of each other and did not trade with each other. So any resemblance between the two is strictly coincidental. But there are many, many such coincidences throughout the world's ancient and modern cultures. We cannot take them all on in one article. So my suggestion is to have a distinct article on the topic of comparative religion or comparative philosophy: Comparison of Pre-socratic and ancient chinese thought" or some such title. A second consideration is, which had not previously been expressed in this article, the two ways are not the same way and are not even like each other. Heraclitus is dabbling in what we would call chemistry with his way. We must beware of accidental coincidence of name, which is why I tookout the material of the Heraclitus of the famous poem, who is not our Heraclitus. Similarly Heraclitus way is not the taoist way and Heraclitus' logos is not the Christian logos. I suspect it is going to be the same story with the dialectic, that Hegel's dialectic is not Heraclitus' supposed dialectic, but I can't say for sure until I consider the influences factor. They may not be the same but if Hegel was influenced by Heraclitus he still has a brief mention (briefer than what is currently said) in the article as it existed when I started in on it. Now, the Christians did not specifically use Heraclitus' logos. Logos is a general term in ancient Greek with many meanings. Similarly every time you use "to be" is not an existential philosophic statement.Dave (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's reliably sourceable that Heraclitus' metaphysics notably parallels that of Taoism, then it should be included in the article as a significant point about Heraclitus' philosophy. Not having access to the referenced work, I cannot say whether this is the case. Skomorokh ^incite 12:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken Skomorokh. I did some soul-searching on it myself, but if you think for a moment, you must realize that in order to decide if it should be in one of us has to do a complete research project on it - you can't just take what some writer of world philosophy says in two paragraphs when he doesn't know much about half the stuff he mentions in his introduction. Nobody can do everything. Just because you can look up one obscure fact and browbeat everyone with it does not mean you know what you are talking about (not you personally but in general). I strongly suspect that once you get into it you will not be able to squeeze it into one or two paragraphs and we need to do something more than just say "for A see Jones, for B see Smith, for C see Carter," and so on. So what I am saying is that is not my only reason. I suspect that to do it minimal justice you need another article, at least, perhaps more. What there is there I have really tried to get down to a minimum but if there is going to be any significant influences section it is going to be over 50 kB. The trouble with using quotes from Kahn and people like that is that we take them out of context and present them as "the authority" when they are no such thing and taking them out of context typically distorts them anyway.

Well, you can see I'm struggling with it but we are going to have to have some Heraclitean balance here. If you like and have the time why don't you do an article comparing Heraclitus and the Tao and then see if it possibly could fit in as a subsection here? As for the paragraph I took out I wouldn't trust that for a minute. So much bunk has been written on Heraclitus it is scarceley believable. Typically people want to build a hotel using a couple of field stones, such as the great theory of Heraclitean introspection, which must be something like yogic trance, or the wonderful logos that establishes all subsequent religions and philosophies. All I'm saying is, we don't have space for those fanciful rice bowls; the authors will have to eat their rice elsewhere. This isn't never-never-land where you start to eat and food appears if only you believe in it.75.69.237.40 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Woops! I need to sign in:Dave (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Having read extensively in Eastern thought, I'm not sure it's appropriate to have removed this reference. While I agree there is little likelihood of there being an historical link, maybe it's worth letting people of the striking similarities between Heracleitus' thought and that of the Taoists in particular. It is, however, historically significant that the divergence of thought from Plato onwards does mark the creation of a way of thinking that is peculiarly Western, as opposed to Eastern. How about a quick note to the effect: "Many have noted striking similarities between Heracleitus' thought and that of Taoist philosophy in particular" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.121.173 (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW The Persian empire (of which Ephesus was a part) at the time had very good communications via well-maintained roads - probably the best of any society in existence up to that time - and extended as far as modern Tajikistan. To Quote Herodotus "There is nothing in the world that travels faster than these Persian couriers." Also "No race is so ready to adopt foreign ways as the Persian." (Both quotes from "A History of the World in 100 Objects" Neil MacGregor 2010 Allen Lane.) The China of this Time was in a state of confusion - but at this very time Chinese ideas were spreading around Asia (Chaos creates migration). Tajikistan is more or less equidistant between Ephesus and the Chinese heartland. If I was to find similar pot-shards at each end of such a possible conduit I would be surprised but not confounded. Ideas leave only written or spoken accounts passed down to us - these are the equivalent of pot-shards - but ideas are "light" they can travel fast. I am not in any way putting forward the conclusion that these thoughts had a common source - I am merely saying that absence of artifact evidence of a link is not evidence of absence of a link of ideas. Later in the article a comparison is made with Buddhist ideas of change - all these things were around at the same time. This is worthy of note here - even if we rightly avoid squeezing even the slightest conclusions from that observation in this article.188.81.102.61 (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"There is no connection at all between ancient Greek and ancient Chinese thought." It is not the job of this article to imply there is - but it is also not our job to declare it impossible and to eliminate a simple comparison link based on that kind of "excessive certainty". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.102.61 (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my first venture into Wiki Contributing - I have yet to be convinced of the need for an account or anonymity. We'll see. ;-) 188.81.102.61 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

References

The problem of the thread

I took this out:

• Friedrich Nietzsche saw Heraclitus from a process perspective: "Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie." Heraclitus is commonly recognized as the first advocate of process philosophy the West, and a direct precursor to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

But I feel I owe some explanation and I do have one. It concerns the use of the thread in historical writing. All history uses the thread to some degree; in fact, the word "history" implies it. History is a story which by definition follows threads. No thread no story. A thread definitely extends over time. For use in these paragraphs I define the snapshot thread and the cinema thread. Cinema threads extend over centuries. Snapshot threads cover the moment, the times. The two are quite different, as the snapshot tries to portray the momentary play of numerous events and factors some quite trivial while the cinema sticks to the evolutionary outcomes of events. Here in this article we are trying to do a snapshot of Heraclitus. A related theme but not the main theme are the cinemas of which this snapshot may be seen to be incident. One is the logos. Another is dialectic materialism. Now, we cannot confuse the snapshot with the cinema. The latter are another topic and typically take much more space than what we can give here. The thing is, cinemas have a life of their own! In other words, whether a given snapshot is in a given cinema is a matter of perception and opinion; more often than not, mainly of opinion. But there are a few ground rules. First, unless there is evidence that the player(s) in a snapshot knew of this specific cinema and deliberately tried to play a scenario in it, then their thought and behavior cannot be said to be determined by it. Heraclitus never saw himself as a process philosopher or a dialectic materialist or a heretic or whatever. He was not a student of Popper or Einstein or whomever and did not oppose the Christianization of Europe. He never heard of Hegel or Karl Marx. The doctrine of opposites IS in fact a deliberate snapshot of a cinema, but it is an ancient one, the theme of the opposites. Any scholarly presentation of this theme does not make it a snapshot in the presenter's cinema. Now, I looked at the Nietzche ref which is online and also did a general search of Nietzche and Heraclitus. Nietzsche is not a bad scholar and does a tolerable presentation on Heraclitus but I do not see it as being part of any Nietsche-Hegel-Popper (implied Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.) cinema. He says a lot about the opposites but no more and nothing different than what already had been said in that cinema. His mention of Heraclitus is minimal and although he expresses admiration one can never actually say, this specific doctrine is Nieztchean and it derives from the specific snapshot of Heraclitus on the opposites. One of the previous authors of the article undertook to present this cinema (he was not the only one) but his sources in no way deviated from the opposites cinema; in fact they were all quite standard scenarios. There was no indication at all that the players were playing "dialectical materialism" and there is none for Nietzsche either. Now, you can write a cinema, "dialectical materialism brand x" but you cannot project it into the scenario of players who knew nothing about it. (Ground rule number 2). It belongs in a separate work on the thread of dialectic materialism, and there are plenty of such works but that is a different topic. So let's stick to the snapshot, OK? What films did Heraclitus think he was starring in? And, after consideration, it still seems to me that similar films, such as possibly the great Tao and the great upward-downward way, should not exchange scenarios (ground rule 3).Dave 13:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC) PS I might end up putting Hegel back in if he considers himself seriously influenced by Heraclitus, I need to check it out.Dave 13:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

References

There goes Heidegger

• Martin Heidegger in his 1943/44 lectures expansively discusses Heraclitus in the context of "the origin of occidental thought" and "logic - Heraclitus' teaching of logos", and credits the very coining of the term "philosophy" to Heraclitus, evidently because of Heraclitus' high regard for "sophon" (wisdom; what is wise).

I think one has to distinguish between Heraclitus scholars and philosophers who are influenced by Heraclitus. I don't think it is possible to enumerate the Heraclitus scholars all across the world in academic settings of every kind. They tell us what Heraclitus said and what he is likely to have meant. We use them as sources for this encyclopedia. Some of them happen to be famous for other things, such as Nietzche and Heidegger. We wouldn't list Burnett or Harris as being influenced by Heraclitus. We consult their opinions on what Heraclitus said. They are our fellow editors, in a sense, and are not the subject matter of the encyclopedia per se. No, an influence is on someone notable for something else who used the thought of Heraclitus in his something else. Naturally there are borderline cases. Now, Heidegger's views on Heraclitus are quite a large subject, way beyond us. We have a few more paragraphs to go and that still produces an article that is far too long. Maybe influences should be taken out, but it would be a shame not to have the arguments of Plato and Aristotle and just what is the Heraclitean logos to anyone anyway? So, I'm making a judgement, Heidegger is more of a professor when he speaks of Heraclitus and does not use him significantly in his own philosophy. Other moderns have done the same thing. That is how many famous philosophers got started, as professors of philosophy. Rather than parrot the usual meaningless tripe from the "overviews", which aren't views and aren't over, I'd rather save the space and treat this as a special topic to be handled in another article by by anyone with a handle on it.Dave (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Popper popped out

• Karl Popper accused Heraclitus as having played a part in laying the foundations for a closed society. In particular, Popper concludes that Heraclitus relativises moral values, quoting Heraclitus: "The good and the bad are identical", relating to Heraclitus's theory of the unity of opposites. Popper also alleges Heraclitus of having formulated a historicist doctrine based on the "justice of war and the verdict of history a tribalist and romantic ethic of Fame, Fate, and the superiority of the Great Man".

This is professor Popper's opinion of Heraclitus. Who cares? He has a lot of opinions about a lot of people but I would not call them influences. This is not about Popper's opinions but about Heraclitus and his influence. Popper is another student of the pre-socratics. Why pick him when there are so many?Dave (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is there anywhere else in the article that Heraclitus' influence in ethics is discussed? I do not see it --JimWae (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What have you got in mind? I don't see any influence in ethics. He said a few things against the Ephesians and about wealth and some vaguer things about government but his entire ethics can be summed up in two sentences and there certainly is no system there. Moreover, he was saying nothing that had not already been said. The general unhappiness with Ionian luxury dates from the conquest of the Ionians by the Persians. The general theme is, if only we had been like the Spartans, we would have beat the Persians, but our awful wealth corrupted us and now look at what has happened. Ain't wealth awful. You may be thinking about the bit routine of only God is wise. How is that Heraclitean? That is a common theme of Greek thought since the Iliad. There is a tendency among the moderns to attribute everything under the sun to Heraclitus. Haven't they read anyone else? We just can't put everything here, we already got 60 or so kb. Here is what I suggest. If you find a philosopher who is hot on Heraclitus or against him (such as Popper) do an article on the work of that philosopher detailing what he means by invoking Heraclitus and reporting whether or not he really has grounds for doing so. Then put a link to that article in "See also." Accordingly I took out Nieztche but then I found the topic was completely covered by a nice article of one of Nietzche's books so I put the link in. I would have done the same for Popper's railings but the big Popper article doesn't even see fit to mention Heraclitus at all. If it doesn't, why should we? Popper's passing pop-offs don't constitute an influence. The thing is, as Heraclitus typcally did not elucidate what he meant, eveyone can attribute this or that to Heraclitus and that game has been going on for a very long time. I don't mean to put you you off only to make you aware that Heraclitus never said half the stuff he is supposed to have said and furthermore many future philosophers looking for authentication call on the name of Heraclitus when actually Heraclitus said or meant no such thing or if he did there is no record of it. I would say, there is no influence of Heraclitus on ethics. His story line was taken over by the cynics. Have you got evidence that the cynics looked to Heraclitus as their founding story-teller?Dave (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm going to be off this article shortly and I am not going to look back. I've had enough total baloney for a while so I need to get to some other area of Wikipedia. Give me some fresh air, I'm suffocating in the hot updrafts of the great fire. Whoosh! Agon. Enantodromia. Apollonian Heraclitean. Babble babble. And oh! I'd advise you not to treat yourself for edema. I predict that after I depart people who have looked at a handbook cursorily will try to puff the article out with the passing opinions they find there. We are soon going to be over 100 kb and among the longest articles. And, it will sit there like that until someone asks for an expert to straighten it all out. Do us a favor. Unless you have something substantive and can express that clearly in few words, put it somewhere else, such as the article on the person who makes the Heraclitean claim. Bye now.Dave (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, thanks so much for the cordial welcome! Obviously, left with fragments, we know little about what Heraclitus meant by anything he "left us". However, we do know that much has been said by scholars about how his sayings would apply to the field of ethics, and that he was one of the earliest (that we have enough fragments from) to say much of anything that could be about ethics. --JimWae (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

References

No younger than Jung

• Carl Jung developed the psychological concept of enantiodromia (in a manner similar to Heraclitus' usage) to illustrate his notion that whenever an individual forms an asymmetrical, conscious ideation as fundamentally predominant, for example, "masculine" values and suppositions of a father archetypalfigure, there will necessarily be opposing forces, and that they will make themselves apparent within the unconscious in various ways as a means to maintain an individual's psychic balance.

Jung is very interesting but this does not appear to be Heraclitean although some eager beavers confusing Pythagoras with Heraclitus attribute anything having to do with opposites to Heraclitus. Chances are, pythagoras didn't originate it either but it comes out of mythology or the middle east.Dave (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

His philosophy mirrors the Kashmir Shaivism

Heraclitus was a forerunner of Kashmir Shaivism (a monistic idealistic philosophy that had its maximum during 700-1100 A.D.). In different cultures, epochs and countries, both systems converged on the same ideas:

• adherence to non-duality from the ultimate perspective
  • "to God all things are fair and good and just"
  • "the A is both A and not-A"
• the consistence of the world is mental
  • he refers to "the thought by which all things are steered through all things"
• God is both material cause (like "pots are made of clay") of efficient cause (like "pots are made by the potter")
• he describes the objective(exterior) reality in a constant state of flux; similarly, K.S. describes the world as a product of continuous acts of creation and dissolution
  • "everything is in a state of flux"
  • "simultaneously it forms and dissolves"
• the pratibimba (reflection) and bheda-abheda (duality-cum-nonduality) concepts
  • "one is made up of all things and all things issue from the one"
• the world is made of a series of ever more subtle cattegories (tattvas) born one of the previous one
  • "the death of fire is the birth of air, and the death of air is the birth of water"
• the K.S. theory of abhasa universe is seen as a series of instantaneous flashes
  • "each object must dissolve and be generated continually momentarily"
• he perceived the nature in a mystical way, different from the common norm
  • quoted "nature likes to hide"
• focus on "the word" (logos) as substrate is identical to the Kashmir Shaivism focus on paravak
• Heraclitus seems to have been a mystic
  • he wandered the mountains ... making his diet of grass and herbs
• he wrote philosophical texts just like the tantrics, encoding them so as not to be easy to read
  • Heraclitus wrote his book "rather unclearly" (asaphesteron) so that only the "capable" should attempt it
• both philosophies are panentheistic

Is it a good idea to put this in the article or maybe write a separate article? Visarga (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there may be quite a few parallels between the two views, but unless you have some third party sources with which to back this up, writing an article about it on Wikipedia would be a violation of WP:NOR. That's not to say that it wouldn't make a good academic paper/book, just not appropriate for Wikipedia. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reincarnation

I removed this:

In the hermetic work, the Kybalion, Heraclitus is described as a reincarnation of an ancient, (un-named), Egyptian philosopher. It is claimed that he was himself re-incarnated as the 19th Century CE English philosopher Herbert Spencer.

This is not the legitimate life of Heraclitus as western scholars and encyclopedias know it. We can't take it seriously as it requires a belief in reincarnation and a faith that the author of the book knows who was reincarnated as whom. Nor can it be considered a part of the philosophy of Heraclitus, as that also would presume a belief in reincarnation and a transmission of his philosophy from corpse to corpse. Well, if it isn't biographical and it isn't philosophy maybe it is influence. Someone was influenced enough by Heraclitus to suppose he was reincarnated. But, our influences section is on the philosophy by other people identifiably influenced by Heraclitus. In short it does not belong in this article anywhere. Ordinarily Wiki would place such items in a trivia section, but the policy is now against trivia sections. Herodotus reincarnted? Give us a break, will you? This is a serious effort to describe the life and philosophy of Heraclitus. As for the item, I don't see it a belonging anywhere but in the Kybalion article, unless someone want to write an article listing people reincarnated as other people.Dave (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Reversion of Whitehead and Hegel

A user of about one month with a single-sentence user page and no discussion page until I welcomed him to Wikipedia slashed out the Whitehead and Hegel sections with no discussion and some peremptory unsubstantiated remarks. What is left is totally worthless and says nothing as he removed my sources as well. We can either put the material back or finish taking out the subsections. Since the previous editors wanted Whitehead and Hegel in there I am putting them back as they were. I note this user's contributions are entirely discussions on child pornography and a photograph of some female mammary glands. Well, my juvenile friend, we already know what they look like. You say this philosophic material belongs under Whitehead and Hegel but you made no attempt to put them there. I do not believe you can, and I do not believe you have any knowledge of philosophy. Does it belong there? That's up to us to decide but you have not cast any credible vote. It takes a discussion. So either discuss, back up what you say and do some work or go on back to your porn. Having a new login does not make you any less a vandal. So you have a girl friend? So I suppose do most all the male editors. This is an encyclopedia, my friend. It is not for you to whimsically vandalize. My recommendation is you either request a mentor or wait until you have some experience before trying to make major changes. I am tempted say, wait also until you have some experience before putting up your girlfriend's picture, but that is not my concern so I will not say it. It is or will become entirely your problem. Best wishes, Dave (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucian of Samosata

I read that sentence with interest and it seems an interesting anecdote that if true belongs in the article. Please note the "if true." I got no reason to doubt it as it seems like excellent satire (I like a good satire myself) but if you look along the page there you will see footnoted refs to actual published books and what not. We do that to keep in touch with reality as otherwise one site copies another and it gets to be quite an inane menagerie of speculations and lies. I think there probably is (my guess) a good source for that so I am not going to put a on it. If though after you read this you get a few minutes I for one would like to know where it came from. I do see there is good article (I think) on the author so if you just could give us a hint as to which work and where you would make me intellectually delighted. There are plenty of footnotes you can use for a model if you need it. Thanks.Dave (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hegel changes and substrate

I edited the Hegel section to make it more accurate both with regard to Hegel's interpretation of Heraclitus (for example, the article said previously that Hegel only uses one citation from Heraclitus, whereas actually he uses a fair number) and with regard to the accurate representation of Hegel's philosophy itself. For example, I took out the term "substrate", since the term and concept are alien to Hegel's philosophy -- I am not familiar with it from any Hegel texts or from the secondary literature with which I'm familiar. Also, the article was not accurately representing the human-centered nature of Hegel's thought, i.e. for Hegel philosophy is higher than religion, and the thought of God comes to fulfillment only in man's knowledge of it. I must say that from my point of view, the part of the Hegel section in the article that isn't about Heraclitus doesn't really belong in an article about Heraclitus. Shouldn't there just be links to the Hegel article for the Hegel stuff that isn't about Heraclitus? Jjshapiro (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Hegel's Aufhebung imply a "substrate" of conditions? 4.242.174.134 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much space devoted to other philosophers

Roughly one third to one half of this article is devoted entirely to other philosophers and their thought. This tells one nothing about Heraclitus. If they were influenced by him, it suffices to mention this and provide a link to that philosopher's own page.Ekwos (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot to be said about Heraclitus! That's what happens when your biography is a tissue of legends & anecdotes, your sole work lost for millennia, and your impact felt largely in other philosophers' reactions to you. Article seems as satisfactory as it reasonably can be. --Gwern (contribs) 20:03 13 March 2009 (GMT)

And why shouldn't the article simply reflect that fact? There is no equation between space devoted and importance. The fact is 1/3 to 1/2 of the article has about as much to do with Heraclitus as do synopses of episodes of "Dallas".Ekwos (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is no such equation, then why bother about it? And I would strongly disagree with your Dallas claim. It is not unreasonable to cover a philosopher's influence when that was the most important thing about him. --Gwern (contribs) 14:29 20 March 2009 (GMT)

Now let's think about this. We are saying (1) that there is very little that remains about what Heraclitus says, so we have to discuss (2) his influence. What can "influence" really mean when so little of his work remains? It means nothing. It simply means people associate random things with his name and say he said these things. Again, people doing such things tells me nothing about Heraclitus, but tells me something about the people doing these things. All that is happening here is that little extra sub-articles about Hegel, Whitehead, et. al. are being written. Either the material should be placed in the articles of the philosopher in question, or it should be removed.Ekwos (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I've moved the "Hegel" and "Whitehead" sections to the Hegel and Whitehead articles respectively. Neither of these were really about Heraclitus at all. The remaining sections about ancient thinkers should probably be included in an article on Heraclitus as our understanding of him is filtered through them.Ekwos (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Duality: eastern concept of balance contrasted to western tradition of strife, starting with Heraclitus?

Could we cite the main difference here that Heraclitus was (among the first?) of the western philosophers of "opposites" or "duality" that promoted & tied that idea as a thing of fruitful strife and conflict, unlike the eastern idea of duality (such as yin & yang) wherein opposites are mostly in harmony, balance and unity? 4.242.174.134 (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Call For A Completely New Article In Place Of This One

Please, someone, delete the current Wikipedia article on Heraclitus and re-write it from the beginning. It is simply awful, from beginning to end: Murky, windy, pretentious....

I'd do it, myself, if I had the time or competence, but I do not. Paraphrasing, with citations, from the summary in the T.M Robinson edition of the Fragments would be a good place to start. Even Will Durant's summary from The Life of Greece, or the entry from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, would offer a vast improvement over this garbage.Pernoctus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

I agree, the article is dreadful. Simply making an article consisting only of the extant fragments would be a substantial improvement (I'm not saying to do this, only that it would be substantially better).Ekwos (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I took a knife to the page to remove anything that read too much like Original Research. In the Life section, all I did was remove the subheadings, and removed a paragraph mentioning the letter from Darius, which I can't imagine many credible historians think is genuine. In the Ancient characterizations section, I removed the bit on The naturalist, since although correct, it didn't seem to be saying anything too interesting. In the Philosophy section I cut out a lot of commentary which cited no textbooks whatsoever. In the Influence section I removed all references to Bearden and his "4 dimensional relativistic solution to the change problem" in the sections on Plato and Aristotle, which as far as Aristotle went, meant deleteing the section entirely. I don't know if all this is an improvement. Singinglemon (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Right well, I've done all I can I think. I've added relatively little to the page - I've just edited it all down a bit, removing, in total, about one-quarter of the content - mostly anything that read like original research. I've also re-written some of the purple prose. It might need some further tightening-up. The section on his philosophy should read a bit more like its setting out some of his thoughts, rather than being a grandiose attempt to interpret him. I've taken the liberty of removing the "Cleanup-rewrite" tag from the top of the page. Singinglemon (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell and Heraclitus

User:Kp_grewal added a couple of paragraphs of information copied, apparently, from Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. I've removed this bit:

As may be expected from his misanthropic nature and philosophy of strife, Heraclitus was a believer in war. War was a part of his system of ethics: "War is the father of all and the king of all; and some he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free." He also rejects Homer's viewpoint about war by saying: "Homer is wrong in saying, "Would that strife might perish from among gods and men!" He did not see that he was praying for the destruction of the universe; for if his prayer was heard, all things will pass away"

I hope other editors of this page agree that, based on a couple of vague and metaphorical fragments, it is pretty ludicrous to state that "Heraclitus was a believer in war," and that "it was part of his system of ethics." It seems to me it would be as silly as claiming that Heraclitus was a pacifist because he says "You should quench violence more quickly than a fire," (B 43). I've not removed the other addition made to this page:

Heraclitus considered fire as the most fundamental of all elements. He thought that fire gave rise to all other elements and therefore everything. He regards the soul as being a mixture of fire and water, the fire is the noble part of the soul and the water ignoble. The aim of the soul should be to become all fire and no water: the "dry" soul is the best. According to Heraclitus, worldly pleasures make the soul moist. Thus Heraclitus considers a victory of one over his worldly desires a noble thing to do and that makes the soul purely "fire".

It would be nice to know though if there is any justification for this stuff about the soul being fire and water, and the need for the soul to become all fire and no water. Singinglemon (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What ever I wrote on the page has been taken from Russel's book. And I think that it is an important and trustworthy resource on the history of western thought. I have no problem with writing : "Russel claims that Heraclitus was a believer in war". But I do not want a possibly important viewpoint to be missing from this article. See what Russel has to say at page 49 of his book: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ey94E3sOMA0C&dq=history+of+western+philosophy&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=6PbHS7i6LYniswO7-pT1BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Heraclitus&f=false

Kp grewal 05:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kp grewal (talk • contribs)

Hi Kp grewel, thanks for trying to improve this page - it does certainly need more analysis from modern textbooks, so I hope I haven't put you off trying!

Okay, firstly, I've had a look a page 49 of Russell's book and although he asserts that "Heraclitus was a believer in war," I can't see anywhere where he actually says that "war was part of his system of ethics." More importantly, I cannot find the following quote anywhere in the currently accepted fragments ([2]) of Heraclitus: "Homer is wrong in saying, 'Would that strife might perish from among gods and men!' He did not see that he was praying for the destruction of the universe; for if his prayer was heard, all things will pass away." It seems that this quote comes from John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy (1892) [3]. This is a very old source now, and if this quote is no longer accepted among the fragments of Heraclitus, then Russell's comments must be regarded as suspect, at the least.

I've had a look in the fragments for authority for the second paragraph you added concerning the soul being fire and water, and the need for the soul to become all fire and no water, and Heraclitus does say things like "a dry soul is wisest and best (B 118)" and "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)," so I think Russell's comments for this bit are defensible.

For what it's worth I don't tend to regard Russell's book as that accurate when it comes to ancient philosophy, it's quite an old book now (1945) - the study of ancient philosophy has moved on a lot in the past 65 years, and so he has to be used with care. Much better would be modern textbooks which are dedicated to Heraclitus or the Pre-Socratics. Of course, writers have spent two-and-a-half thousand years arguing about Heraclitus, so it's quite hard to find a consensus view. :-) Singinglemon (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Singinglemon, thanks for the comments regarding Heraclitus' views on war and Homer. I am not an expert on greek history. You definitely seem to be. I will not insist on putting Heraclitus' opinion on war on the article. Thanks. Kp grewal 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kp grewal (talk • contribs)

On a mission

“A change to "BCE" requires a discussion on the Talk page.” What a joke, first edit I see was BCE. That was in 2001, and you're here to set it straight after 9+ years (or take)? WP:BRD—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

However, there needs to be a concensus on the talk page following discussion whether or not to change from BC/AD to BCE/CE or it will be violating WP:ERA. Therefore, I propose the reverting to BC/AD from BCE/CE if there are no objections and reasons against BC/AD being reintroduced as the date format for this article. BCE/CE is being implemented in a flagrant violation of WP:ERA and it needs to be stopped and the policy to be enforced to the letter. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer BCE/CE, though it is really nothing to get worked up about. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

BCE was introduced 2001-Sep-22. BCE is the default for this article. Its use is not "a flagrant violation of WP:ERA". I oppose change to BC & I see no consensus for such a change. --JimWae (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No one cares what any of us prefer. We just don't force the change. Why not insert historical material into articles that still have none, and establish your prefered convention there. There's always something useful to do...--Wetman (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Era notation was first introduced into this article 2001-Sep-22. The era notation used then was BCE. Thus CE/BCE is the default for this article. It is not a matter of which one is currently predominant. Usage of BCE here is not "a flagrant violation of WP:ERA". I oppose change to BC & I see no consensus for such a change. IIRC, there is precedent for blocking user accounts that do nothing but change era notation. --JimWae (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Wetman and JimWae, especially regarding the troublesomeness of accounts that do nothing but focus on era notation. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"The giants of pre-sophistic Greek philosophy"

Pages 31 to 129 of the above mentioned work by Felix M. Cleve has quite a bit of information on Heraclitus' philosophy & philosophical concepts: his pyr aeizoon, pyr haptomenon & pyr technikon, the anathymiasis, ekpyrosis the separated godhead as kechorismenos rather than immanent cause. Logos epilanthanomoenos versus Logos me dynon pote Heraclitus agreeing with the Stoics in the idea of euarestesis i.e. "artistic satisfaction at doing well one's histrionic task". Different aspects of the godhead as Xynos, Keraunos & Aion "ho aei eon", To Sophon Mounon; the "pais paizon" whose motives are "kamatos, chresmosyne, koros..." also it speaks of Heraclitus' element of 'Prestér', an element "heavier" than earth and the furthest from the aether element etymologically akin to "pusher, or pervader", and can mean hurricane or lightning. Nagelfar (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Studying For An Exam

I find no link to Parmenides or the Eleatics on this page, which is kind of frustrating, since they are pretty much the entire Grecian counter-argument to Heraclitus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.182.148.97 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Heraclitus-03.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Heraclitus-03.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Heraclitus-03.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed this image from the page. This picture is of a bust found at the Villa of the Papyri - and noone knows who it represents. It has sometimes been identified with Democritus, which I suppose would be more plausible since the villa has a strong Epicurean connection, but I don't think anyone knows who it's meant to represent. Pasicles (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Transcription of Greek in this article (and elsewhere?)

I have not seen this type of transcription of ancient polytonic Greek before in Wikipedia: hepesthai to koino. That is one of the conventions for transcription of ancient Greek, I believe the Greeks themselves do so: omit the iota subscript. I would rather see hepesthai toi koinoi, or the same with 'o' overstrike. Do you agree, or have I simply overseen some general rule?bibh, Leiden NL 08:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibh wkp (talk • contribs)

If you're reasonably familiar with the transcription of ancient Greek, then I suggest that you go ahead, WP:BEBOLD, and make the change. Pasicles (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Entry "Ethos antropoi daimon"

This entry is based on an interesting discussion I had with two friends on facebook. A teacher in philosophy and computer science, brought up the quote "ἦθος ἀνθρώπωι δαίμων" (Heraklit B22 119) and a possible translation. I then searched for reliable literature sources on the www to obtain more information, and as a result, disagreements arose as to how this old greek sentence can best be translated. The other participant mentioned the interpretation of "Totengeister", which seemed strange at first. But the word "divinity" created a link between the meanings of "spirit" and "fate". The last sentence of this entry was taken directly from the source, which I cited. Subsequently, I thought this is worth an entry for Heraclitus but it was not my creation. It originated from the thoughts of a trained philosopher. I checked the German version for Heraklit but it was better suited for an entry in the English language section. Thank you. (Osterluzei (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC))

Darius

Re this edit[4], there is a tradition of associating Heraclitus with Darius. [5][6][7] — goethean 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the two forged letters between Heraclitus and Darius quoted in Diogenes Laertius. Now I understand - the line I removed made the peculiar statement that "some of historians believe that Heraclitus had a close relationship with Achaemenid Darius, but some of researchers rejected this story." I couldn't make much sense of it, but yes that's fine, I'll add a sentence about the letters to the Life section citing one of these textbooks. Thanks for the explanation. Pasicles (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Skyrim??

Seems to be some vandalism, referencing Skyrim in the section about "Character is fate". - Farsight

Similarities with Taoism. Proof that influence was not just possible but likely.

Similarities with Taoism in contemporary China do not now deserve the rubbishing that "Silo" philosophy has enforced, as this article demonstrates. I am tired of at least getting this theory the smallest traction it so obviously deserves, so let the pure science have its say. Boy I love it when science barges in on the self satisfied philosophy coffee machine. Mitochondria doesn't lie. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37624943. It remains for someone else to insert this in the article, I am tired of having my humble suggestions edited out. Obviously this hard evidence is just a bit late - but it blows away the "impossible" argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.101.207 (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that some people in what is now northwestern China had mitochondrial DNA that's similar to European populations in the early centuries CE hardly proves that Heraclitus was influenced by Daoism. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)