- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Heraclitus is the father of the philosophy of process, one of the most influential philosophical traditions.�
In the most general sense, any scientific school in whose ontology processes rather than essences are primary (i.e., it studies not individual books and authors, but the “literary process”, not individuals and groups of people, but processes occurring in society, etc.) – remotely inherits Heraclitus.
And besides, it's great literature. Heraclitus speaks in riddles that are interesting to puzzle over. If his contemporaries called him Dark as a reproach, the twentieth century taught us to value “dark” texts above transparent ones.
Relevant? “nothing. Science and philosophy have gone far ahead. Interesting from a historical point of view, as a prominent representative of the then science.
First, we can refer to Heraclitus when developing the concept of universal variability.
Secondly, no non-changing objects have been found in nature and probably do not exist. And this means that Heraclitus at the dawn of civilization said the right idea, but it was not heard, they started talking, they lost two and a half thousand years to study side models.
Modern theories should be rechecked for consistency with the Heraclitean principle. If something immobile is found in the theory, the find is subject to a thorough investigation. Behind it is either a flaw and a false conclusion, or a discovery of universal scale.
With philosophers and their relevance, we must admit, everything is in a special way.
Philosophical concepts are not refuted experimentally (for example, through experiment), like the concepts of natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics).
The reason for this is that the subject of philosophy is not given to us directly. And what is it anyway?
Philosophers are engaged in thinking thinking (and thinking is a living, mobile thing, and therefore cannot be fixed once and for all in one permanent definition).
In the classical tradition, philosophical thinking was opposed to ordinary consciousness, opinion. And this is not a snobbish distinction between philosophers and all other people, it is a question of contrasting thinking with the opinion in themselves.
Contemporary of Heraclitus, Parmenides of Elea expresses this in the statement “Being is, but Non-being is not”, where by being he means the thinking of some eternal and perfect unity, and by opinion – our experiences, the content of sensations, emotions, inclinations (in a word, everything that we are accustomed to consider real life).�
In this sense, you can't think of wine, for example, you can only imagine it, imagine it.
As soon as a person understands that what he considered his thinking is not thinking at all, that it is still necessary to come to thinking (to clear it of opinion), at that moment ancient philosophy begins.
The merit of ancient thinkers is that they saw the inconsistency of mythology, which was based precisely on the imagination of people, on opinion (a good example here will be the numerous statues of the gods worshipped by the Greeks). The first philosophers were convinced that when a person thinks about something perfect, universal and true, he should not trust the content of feelings and imagination and rely on them as the main tools of knowledge.�
Among these first ancient heroes-philosophers, there is alsoHeraclitus of Ephesus.
Before answering the question of relevance, I think it is important to outline the teaching of this pre-Socratic(this is the name of thinkers who lived before the appearance of Socrates in the philosophical arena).
Heraclitus of Ephesus was born around 540 and died around 480 BC..
He placed his main and fragmentary work “On Nature” for storage in the Temple of Artemis.
The philosopher was very skeptical of people, especially the inhabitants of his native Ephesus. There is a version that Heraclitus made it very difficult to get acquainted with his concept in order to protect the teaching from “rough souls”. One of the measures for such protection was the choice of text storage location.
Approximately 120 fragments of the main work have survived to our timeHeraclitus ' On Nature. I suggest you consider and discuss some of them. And, as a certain conclusion from the consideration of fragments, to come to the conclusion about the relevance or irrelevance of the thinker.
Heraclitus is convinced that the whole world is ruled by some higher reason, law or universal necessity – Logo.
Logos is translated from ancient Greek as “word”, “speech”, “law”.
Although the world is intelligent, because it exists in accordance withBy the Logos (law, necessity), people are blind to this truth of the world (moreover, this truth is also hidden from ordinary consciousness). A person is accustomed to consider as true only his own opinion, feeling or idea, for which the world exists randomly.
This, according to Heraclitus, is the main delusion of mankind.�
But, at the same time, the philosopher says that the human soul, having made an effort on itself and overcome the temptation of opinion, is able to absorb this fact.Logos of the world (universal law and necessity). By sharing in the truth of the world, the soul also becomes intelligent. A rational soul, having comprehended the one law common to everything and everyone, can seeLogos in ordinary everyday life (in its seemingly random course), to see the truth in the diversity of things, in their death and birth.
Only by becoming one with the universal law (Logos) Having begun to think, the soul finds reliable companions in the form of the senses (sight, touch, smell, etc.). But only after comprehending one universal law can the soul apply this knowledge to each individual object (in each individual object, it finds one common Logos for everything in the world).�
In what way, according to the ideaHeraclitus, consists of this supremeThe logo?
This comparison of the world law and the world itself with fire is perhaps the most recognizable position of philosophyHeraclitus.
It is worth noting that by denying the participation of the gods in the creation of the world, Heraclitus denies the necessity and truth of the gods of Greece (the same Olympic pantheon). At the same time, it uses the wordGod in the meaningLogo. For him, the universal, necessary law is expressed in equal measure by the word Logos and the word God.
Here it becomes clear that Heraclitus understands the universal law as unity, but a mobile, living unity (mind, fire, God). From the universal (from the universal flame) everything arises, and into it everything goes.
For those who understand this unity, the law has universal significance (Logos, truth) for those who wander in the darkness of opinion, the law is something that everyone can have their own (opinion).
The difficulty of this idea lies in the fact that for all the falsity of the way of opinion recognized by Heraclitus, only from its content can a person understand the truth.�
We (humans) are always bound to start with an opinion, but wisdom consists in seeing in an opinion the manifestations of that very Logos (true law).
Being (Logos) and non-being (opinion) for Heraclitus are one and opposite at the same time.
Thus, another famous statement of Heraclitus is clarified:
Here, multi-knowledge means the knowledge of many objects, people, and gods (a kind of knowledge of a polymath who simply keeps a lot of random facts in his head), while under the mind Heraclitus means the knowledge of that very one, universal and necessary Logos (this knowledge alone can make the contemplation of the diversity of the world meaningful, conscious, and true).�
That's what it means in philosophyHeraclitus is the one Logos, law, God, fire. If the world is so diverse that every finite thing is different from itself at every new moment of time (you can not enter the river twice, there will always be new water in the river), then absolutely nothing finite can be known until we reveal the very law (one and general), according to which all the multitude of things exists.
Of course, many fragments of the work of Heraclitus remain outside our attention, not to mention the interpretations of this philosopher's statements.
Everyone was attracted to the mysterious Heraclitus. I paid a lot of attention to itLenin, a great work is dedicated to HeraclitusBy Martin Heidegger.
Do not forget about the ancient Greeks themselves and their attitude to the legacy of the philosopher.
However, it is worth repeating here the question with which it all began) What can be relevant to Heraclitus today?
(Certainly not by its concept of the formation of celestial bodies, according to which there are niches in the firmament in which light vapors of the world fire accumulate).
Relevance can be discussed, perhaps, in the context of the development of thinking, both by an individual and by humanity as a whole. Let me remind you that Heraclitus speaks of an opinion that cannot be considered significant in itself. An opinion becomes meaningful only when the soul is awakened to the Logos (mind).
Not everything that comes to my mind spontaneously is life, and some things may have wandered into it from the realm of non-existence. Is it possible to compare modern social networks with the total domination of opinion without reason?
It is also relevant to the development of modern branches of scientific knowledge. Today, the sciences exist, as it were, separately from each other, in many specialized branches. But isn't that what Heraclitus would struggle with if he lived today?
He opposed the multiplicity of the world, which is seen directly through the eyes of man; he insisted that everything is not limited to multiplicity, but that there is also a certain universal, higher unity. Is it not possible that as long as this unity is not perceived, the sciences develop spontaneously and accidentally, and not in accordance with reason?
Isn't it the most advanced scientists who are currently puzzling over the problems of consciousness ' identity with itself? How do we talk about a certain integral Self (about myself), if “you can not enter the same river twice” and at each new moment, both biologically and in terms of the content of my psyche, I am a new person?
I will not impose my interpretations too actively))
Fragments of Heraclitus are publicly available and can be viewed here. And, of this I am sure, the time spent on Heraclitus will not seem to be wasted.
You can learn more about philosophy in the corresponding section of our app: https://go.onelink.me/aWYy/thequestion