-
[MUSIC]
-
Heraclitus was known in
antiquity as the riddler.
-
He had a reputation both for
obscurity and profundity.
-
The one book he wrote was widely quoted in
antiquity, and from the evidence we have,
-
it was full of oracular pronouncement and
deliberate paradox.
-
Socrates is reported to have said upon
reading the book, the parts that I
-
understood were very impressive, and so
were the parts that I didn't understand.
-
So, what was the book about?
-
In a word, it is about the LOGOS.
-
Now Logos is a term that we've
noted has a range of meanings.
-
From the very general sense in which
a LOGOS is a word or anything said,
-
to the more restricted sense in which
it's a particular way of using words.
-
Specifically, to give an explanation,
or reason, or to figure something out.
-
So, let's see where Heraclitus' LOGOS
fits into this range of meanings.
-
Not surprisingly, he turns out
to have exploited most of them.
-
Let's look at the opening lines
of the book, which is 22B1.
-
This LOGOS holds always, but humans
always prove unable to understand it,
-
both before hearing it and
when they have first heard it.
-
Now, here we might think the LOGOS
is the book of Heraclitus itself.
-
And, that the philosopher is making the
perennial complaint of the misunderstood
-
artist that his brilliant work is not
appreciated by the general public.
-
Now, there is some truth to this,
I think, but as we read on,
-
it seems that the Logos can't simply be
the book that Heraclitus has written.
-
For although all things come to
be in accordance with this LOGOs,
-
humans are like the inexperienced when
they experience such words and deeds as I
-
set out, distinguishing each according
to its nature and saying how it is.
-
Heraclitus, here,
-
distinguishes between
-
the words he has written
-
down and the LOGOS.
-
The LOGOS is not what he says, but
-
a principle that governs everything
that comes to be or happens,
-
even if people don't understand it
when he tries to explain it to them.
-
And that they don't understand is
a constant refrain in the book.
-
Our quote from the opening ends by
contrasting Heraclitus' own insight
-
with the stupidity of other people who
fail to notice what they do when awake.
-
Just as they forget what
they do while asleep.
-
Heraclitus regularly appeals to
the distinction between sleeping and
-
waking experience to make the point
that those who do not understand
-
the Logos are like sleepers who
mistake their dreams for reality.
-
So Heraclitus is giving a wake up call,
-
inviting us to understand the true
reality behind our experiences.
-
That reality is expressed in the LOGOS.
-
But what does the LOGOS say?
-
Nothing very straightforward, obviously,
or else it wouldn't be so hard for
-
us to get.
-
The closest thing we have to a clear
statement of the LOGOS is in fragment B50.
-
Llisten not to me but
-
to the LOGOS; it is wise to
agree that all things are one.
-
Now when he says don't listen to me but
-
to the LOGOS,
he means look I'm not making this up.
-
When he says it is wise to
agree that all things are one,
-
he is telling us what the LOGOS says.
-
So, the LOGOS is that all things are one.
-
But what does that mean,
that there is only one thing?
-
How could that be true?
-
I'm here, you're here, and
that makes at least two things.
-
Or, will Heraclitus roll his
eyes at this objection and
-
say that's just the sort of response you'd
get from people who can't tell that they
-
are dreaming rather than awake.
-
You see inviting us to wake up and realize
that there really is no difference between
-
the things that seem pretty obviously
different and distinct to us.
-
Well, at least for some things, yes.
-
For instance, here's some more quotes.
-
The road up and
the road down are the same, hint.
-
The track of writing is both straight and
crooked.
-
That's one of my favorites.
-
The beginning and the end are common
on the circumference of a circle.
-
These are just a few of the many
fragments in which Heraclitus proclaims
-
what people call the unity of opposites.
-
Now we might say, okay,
so what's the big deal?
-
The same thing can have opposite
properties depending on your frame of
-
reference.
-
What's so hard to understand about that?
-
But consider another unity that Heraclitus
invokes when he castigates Hesiod as,
-
quote, a man who could not recognize
day and night, for they are one.
-
What does it mean to say that day and
night are one?
-
When it's day here,
it's night in Australia?
-
My apologies to anyone who is
taking this course from Australia.
-
More likely, he meant that day and night
are different phases of the same thing,
-
where that thing is the complex
system comprising the Earth,
-
the Sun, and the other celestial bodies.
-
Even though night and day are completely
opposite in our experience of them,
-
as different as night and
day, as we would say,
-
we can understand them as expressions
of a deeper underlying regularity.
-
On this way of understanding
Heraclitus' Logos, his point in claiming
-
that all things are one is not to
deny that there is multiplicity and
-
variety in the world, but rather,
-
to insist that there is an underlying
order to that multiplicity and variety.
-
This is what is not obvious.
-
And what most people,
the sleepers fail to see.
-
What the sleepers fail to understand
is a deep truth about the world that
-
though at variance with
itself It agrees with itself.
-
It is a backwards-turning attunement
like that of the bow and the lyre.
-
Now this attunement is what he
calls the unapparent connection
-
that he says is stronger
than apparent connection.
-
Now connection and attunement
translate the same Greek term here.
-
It's harmonia, which is the root,
of course, of our term for
-
musical harmony, but
it also means a joining together, as
-
when a cabinet maker fits tongue-in-groove
when constructing a piece of furniture.
-
The important point here is that
the unity involved in harmonia, and
-
hence in the Logos,
is a matter of order and structure.
-
But does the world have a LOGOS?
-
Now you might ask, what reason
does Heraclitus have for being so
-
confident that there is such an underlying
order or Logos to the world?
-
We can grant him the order
behind night and day.
-
But, why should we suppose that the whole
world follows some underlying order?
-
Recall that Heraclitus says
that everything comes to be
-
according to the Logos in
the opening lines of the book.
-
Why not conclude that the world, or maybe
large pockets of it, are just chaotic?
-
That's certainly what our
experience often tells us.
-
But, Heraclitus tells us not
to just trust our experience.
-
He says, eyes and ears are bad witnesses
to people if they have barbarian souls.
-
And the soul, he says, has its own LOGOS.
-
In one place he calls it a deep LOGOS.
-
In another he calls it
a self-increasing LOGOS.
-
Here is where I would want to translate
LOGOS as reason or reasoning.
-
When Heraclitus says, I searched myself,
or alternatively, I looked into myself.
-
He means he used his critical faculties.
-
His power of reasoning.
-
But, what chain of reasoning would
support the conclusion that there is
-
an underlying unity and
order to the world?
-
That's a pretty tall order.
-
If Heraclitus produced such an argument,
-
he hasn't shared it with us or
no one saw fit to quote it from his book.
-
But, even if he doesn't have a proof that
there is an underlying order to things,
-
his conviction that there is such an order
isn't idle dogmatism or table thumping.
-
For the belief that the world
is ultimately understandable or
-
explicable is a presupposition behind the
whole enterprise of scientific inquiry.
-
To search for explanations is to try
to uncover hidden connections and
-
unifying principles that explain
the variety of phenomena that we observe.
-
Heraclitus belief that
the world has a LOGOS
-
may simply express his conviction that
the world is ultimately understandable.
-
If so, it is a conviction that he shares
with the Melanesian Naturalists, Thales,
-
Anaximander, and Anaximenes,
each of whom also insisted on a single
-
explanatory principle
of the natural world.
-
It is their shared assumption that
the world is ultimately explicable,
-
more than their specific
proposals about how to explain it,
-
that have earned them a place in
the history of natural science.
-
It is also what earns them the title
that Aristotle gives them,
-
phusiologoi, which we can now understand
in a slightly different twist,
-
as those who believe with Heraclitus, that
there is a LOGOS to the natural world.