On Heraclitus

I have been reading Frederick Copleston’s History of Philosophy.  Volume one of the nine volume work deals with Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy.  This is undoubtedly the philosophy with which I am the most familiar. But there was something that struck me when I read Copleston’s interpretation of Heraclitus. Most people (if they know of Heraclitus at all) seem to remember him for his saying that “All things are in a state of flux.” (Something he never actually said.)  Many books and many of my professors in college have rather agreed with the Hegelian interpretation.  That is they paint Heraclitus as claiming that all things are in a state of chaos and are many.  They go on to contrast the position of Heraclitus with that of Parmenides who claimed that all things are one and unchanging, and that change and motion are an illusion.  Then Hegel (and many others) point to Plato as the great synthesizer, who crafts a position whereby there are unchanging universal forms and a realm of becoming consisting of the ever-changing objects of sensation.
     As much as I like to give credit to Plato for creating a truly well-reasoned philosophical system, I think in this case most have simplified the position of Heraclitus to fit a nice Hegelian synthesis with the position of Parmenides.
     While it is certainly true that Heraclitus did say, “You could not step twice in the same rivers; for other and yet other waters are ever flowing on.”1  He also wrote “In the same rivers we step and we do not step. We are and are not.”2  If we are to take just these two passages, we might have strong evidence to support the common characterization of Heraclitus as simply the philosopher of chaos or flux. But Heraclitus seems to also make the case for a natural tension in the world, held between opposing states or forces. He writes, “The harmony of the world is of tensions, like that of the bow and the lyre.”3 Heraclitus also writes, “Men do not understand how what is divided is consistent with itself; it is a harmony of tension like that of the bow and the lyre.”4 Looking at Heraclitus in this light, he seems to be arguing in way more consistent with the systems of Eastern thinkers such as 老子 Lao Tsu (Laozi) who write of the world consisting of the道 Tao which is a harmony of tensions. Heraclitus does explicitly write of the unity of the opposing tensions, “It is wise, listening not to me but to the Law, to acknowledge that all things are one.”5
     I have to agree with Copleston’s understanding of Heraclitus. “What are we to say of the doctrine of Heraclitus, the notion of unity in difference?  That there is a many, a plurality, is clear enough.  But at the same time the intellect strives to conceive a unity, a system, to obtain a comprehensive view to link things up; and this goal of though corresponds to a real unity in things: things are interdependent.”6
     I am glad that Copleston has pointed this out. Reading his thoughts on Heraclitus encouraged me to go back and look at Heraclitus’ surviving work with a mind to compare what he had written with the common interpretation of his work.  Sure enough, many people it seems, are content to turn Heraclitus into a caricature, a kind of anti-Parmenides. While much of Heraclitus' writing is obscure and mystical, enough can be discerned to show us that this is not true.
     This serves as a reminder to go back and look at the primary sources and not take a commentator at their word.  I have been frustrated in the past by overly simplistic and (at least to my mind) wrong interpretations of Plato, so I am already weary of secondary sources and their bias. This incident will serve as a reminder for me not to abandon my slow progress through the original writings of philosophers, a process which I began back in 1997.


1 Heraclitus as quoted in Nahm, M.C. (1964), Selections from Early Greek Philosophy, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall p.70 (Fragment 41)

2 Heraclitus as quoted in Nahm (1964), p.73 (Fragment 81)

3 Ibid. p.71 (Fragment 56)

4 Ibid. p.71 (Fragment 45)

5 Ibid. p.67 (Fragment 1)

6 Copleston, F., (1946), A History of Philosophy:  Volume 1 Greece and Rome, Mahwah, N.J., Paulist Press p.45