Heraclitus: We are and we are not!

History of Philosophy 3

No man ever steps in the same river twice. For it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man. — Heraclitus

Thales claimed that the arkhe was water, Anaximandros said it was apeiron, Anaximenes claimed it was air, and Pythagoras asserted that it was numbers. Heraclitus opposed all of these by defining the arche in a slightly different way.

“All things are an exchange for fire, and fire for all things, as goods for gold and gold for goods.”

Fire… Fire is constantly in motion and has the power to transform the objects it encounters. Regardless of the object it encounters, fire melts it into itself, but the fire itself remains unchanged. What did Heraclitus want to point?

While studying philosophy in high school, I encountered the classic notion that Heraclitus identified fire as the arkhe. Initially, I found this idea perplexing. After all, hadn’t Thales proposed water as the primal substance?

Later, during my college years, I delved into the study of ancient philosophy, where I encountered Heraclitus and his concept of ‘arkhe.’ Contrary to what I had memorized in high school, Heraclitus’s famous statement ‘Arkhe is fire’ didn’t encapsulate the full depth of his philosophy. Instead of viewing fire as a mere physical element, Heraclitus saw it as a symbol of the ever-changing process inherent in the universe.

Heraclitus emphasized not static being, but dynamic becoming. For him, ‘arkhe’ represented a continuous cycle of existence and annihilation, highlighting the perpetual flux of the cosmos. While previous philosophers acknowledged the existence of change in nature, Heraclitus was the first to propose that the fundamental principle of the universe could be the process of change itself.

By reframing our understanding of ‘arkhe’ as a dynamic force rather than a static entity, Heraclitus asserts that the fundamental principle in the universe is not a concrete physical object; instead, it is the process of becoming itself.

Panta Rhei! Everything Flows

We are born, we grow, we age, and we die. What is hot turns to cold, what is dry turns to wet, what is bright turns to dim. All objects are constantly in motion and change towards destruction. If everything is constantly transforming into one another, ceasing to exist and reemerging, then in reality, everything is one and the same.

The road up and the road down are the same thing!

If everything in the universe is in a state of perpetual flux and change, then the person you are today is not identical to who you were yesterday. This is because we undergo continual transformation over time. While Heraclitus doesn’t explicitly mention time, the idea that everything is in motion implies speculation about its future direction. This naturally leads to questioning the nature of time itself.

“You cannot step into the same river twice!”

This statement is indeed one of the most famous attributed to Heraclitus, although its exact phrasing is a matter of interpretation and attribution. There are other fragments attributed to Heraclitus that convey a similar meaning. For instance, Heraclitus himself is quoted as saying, “We step and do not step into the same rivers, we are and we are not”.

A more intricate statement attributed to Heraclitus is “We are and we are not,” which contains a significant paradox highlighting the notion that nothing remains identical with itself continuously. In essence, it presents the idea of “A is A and not A” to convey the concept of constant flux and change. Heraclitus eloquently employs the metaphor of a river to illustrate this concept. Consider a river: as its waters flow incessantly, each time you step into it, you encounter different water. Yet, at a fundamental level, it remains the same river. This is because, despite the ever-changing waters, the riverbed consistently shapes those waters in a recognizable manner. There exists a measure or principle that governs and sustains the water in its particular form. Just as the riverbed acts as the criterion for the flowing waters and their transformations, there must be an immutable principle that oversees this universal change. In essence, for change to occur, there must be a principle that remains constant. This principle is what Heraclitus refers to as the “logos.”

Directly translating “Logos” into English presents a challenge due to its multifaceted meanings. Greek, being a rich and nuanced language, lends itself well to philosophical discourse. “Logos” encompasses several meanings, including:

• Measure
• Order
• Principle
• Ratio
• Truth
• Reason
• Word

Let’s take a moment to digress from the current topic and explore something intriguing.

The Gospel of John begins: “In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God, and the Word was God…”

Could the “Word” mentioned in the Gospel of John be referring to the concept of Logos, as understood in Heraclitean philosophy? In this context, the term “Word” doesn’t simply denote spoken language as we perceive it today but rather aligns with the deeper philosophical concept found in ancient Greek thought, particularly in Heraclitus’s teachings. In Heraclitus’s philosophy, Logos encompasses multiple meanings, one of which is indeed “word.” However, it represents more than mere linguistic expression; it symbolizes the underlying truth or principle governing the cosmos. Therefore, when the Gospel of John speaks of the Word, it could be interpreted as alluding to this universal truth or divine principle, akin to Heraclitus’s Logos.

What was the essence and nature of the Logos according to Heraclitus? Did he suggest an alternative foundation akin to a deity? Did he claim to be the source of this Logos? How might Heraclitus respond to these questions? Through his constant emphasis on the unity of opposites and the underlying harmony within the universe, and his equating of arkhe and logos, I endeavored to implant this concept in your understanding. What we now recognize as pantheism — a belief system — was, in essence, Heraclitus’s cosmological worldview. He fundamentally identified as a pantheist.

In Heraclitus’s framework, the concepts of logos, arkhe, unity, and multiplicity are all intertwined with the notion of nature. When delving into Heraclitus’s philosophy, it’s essential to consider the idea of a deity, where nature itself embodies divinity. For him, the various meanings attributed to logos, as echoed in the Gospel of John, suggest that order, the universe, unity, multiplicity, and God are inherently interconnected. If God, the universe, and logos are synonymous, and if there isn’t a distinct deity apart from nature, then the question arises: Why do we exist? What is our purpose in this interconnected cosmos?

“Eternity is like a child playing at draughts; the kingdom belongs to a child.”

This sentence is one that earned Nietzsche great admiration. The logos, foundational to the universe, is likened to the mind of a child. However, in this context, the child is engrossed in solitary play. In Nietzsche’s renowned analogy, it’s akin to a child constructing a sandcastle by the seashore, only to demolish it abruptly out of boredom. Both Heraclitus and Nietzsche, through this analogy, suggest that the logos didn’t create the universe or us with any specific purpose in mind. The universe exists devoid of any inherent purpose. Just as a child spends hours building something for the sheer joy of play, only to dismantle it abruptly when bored, so too the universe came into existence without purpose and will naturally dissolve when the time comes.