In this paper I show that one of the most fruitful ways of employing paradoxes has been as a philosophical method that forces us to reconsider basic assumptions. After a brief discussion of recent understandings of the notion of paradoxes, I show that Zeno of Elea was the inventor of paradoxes in this sense, against the background of Heraclitus’ and Parmenides’ way of argumentation: in contrast to Heraclitus, Zeno’s paradoxes do not ask us to embrace a paradoxical reality; and in (...) contrast to Parmenides, Zeno shows common assumptions to be internally problematic, not just in light of Eleatic positions. (shrink)

This paper offers a new reading of Heraclitus fragment B90 (Diels-Kranz). It argues that we can enrich our understanding of the fragment by reading it, not as a primitive analogy, but as a skillful simile grounded both in the poetic tradition and in the cultural context that would have conditioned its significance for Heraclitus and his audience. Read in this way, B90’s evocation of a cosmos whose common measure parallels the common measure of the polis’ marketplace is not simply a (...) source of cosmological doctrine. It is also an epistemic challenge that threatens to undermine the very possibility of cosmology. (shrink)

In Metaphysics Γ, Aristotle argues against those who seem to accept contradictions. He distinguishes between the Sophists, who deny the principle of non-contradiction through arguments, and the Natural Philosophers, whose physical investigations lead to the acceptance of objective contradictions. Heraclitus’ name appears throughout the discussion. Usually, he is associated with the discussion against the Sophists. In this paper, I explore how the discussion with the Natural Philosophers may illuminate both the interpretation of Heraclitus by Aristotle and Heraclitus’ own worldview. To (...) refute the Natural Philosophers, Aristotle proposes a general reconstruction of their reasoning. Roughly, relying on sensory evidence (A1), they see that the same thing changes from one opposite to another (A2). Such a change appears to characterize a generation out of non-being, which a Natural Philosopher does not accept (A3). To solve the problem, despite their different worldviews, Natural Philosophers hint at a state in which opposites co-occur, characterizing an objective contradiction (C). Looking at the discussion in Metaphysics Γ and Heraclitus fragments, sections 1–3 show how assumptions A1, A2, and A3 easily apply to Heraclitus. The case of the conclusion is more challenging. In the case of the Pluralists, the co-existence of opposites characterizes a state in which there is no generation. Such a view does not fit Heraclitus’ mobilism. To argue that Aristotle’s argument is general enough to encompass dynamic views, I examine his problematization of accepting the change of change in Metaphysics K and Physics V. There, after re-stating several points that appear in Metaphysics Γ, Aristotle argues that accepting the becoming of another becoming leads to a state of contradiction in which the becoming is perishing. Heraclitus’ B8, cited in Nicomachean Ethics, gives evidence that, for Aristotle, Heraclitus puts a process at the origin of an opposite process. Moreover, after examining the expression ‘living the death/dying the life’ in B62, I argue that Heraclitus was aware that his worldview implied a dynamic objective contradiction. Finally, an analysis of elemental changes in B36 proves that accepting objective contradictions does not make Heraclitus’ worldview less attractive. (shrink)

The earliest recorded philosophical use of the term "phusis" occurs in the fragments of Heraclitus (most notably at B1 and B123). Phusis, in the non-philosophical writings relevant to Heraclitus’s time (e.g. from Homer to Aeschylus and Pindar), was generally used to characterize the external physical appearance of something. Heraclitus, on the other hand, seems to have used the term in the completely opposite manner: an object’s phusis is hidden (kruptesthai) and greater (kreissōn) than the external appearance (B123 and B54). Despite (...) this difference, Heraclitus’s use has an affinity with the common use in his time: phusis is used to characterize things. In B1, for example, Heraclitus makes it clear that he is interested in explaining the nature of each thing as opposed to some cosmic principle of Nature. By examining various fragments, I make the case that the phusis of a thing, for Heraclitus, can be defined as the set of opposites necessarily inherent in an object upon which all objects of that kind depend for their existence. The interesting result is that Heraclitus’s novel use of phusis happens to be the foundation for one of the ways in which opposites form a unity. This particular thesis states that there are essential properties inherent in objects which are pairs of opposites sufficient to determine the unity of the object in question. If this is right, then we can read some fragments which contain descriptions of worldly objects (e.g. bows, lyres, rivers, barley drinks etc.) in a new light. These descriptions of worldly objects might not be meant to stand as metaphoric symbols for cosmic principles, as is often thought; rather, they can be read as instances of Heraclitus attempting to do a metaphysics of objects. (shrink)

This article aims to throw light on a recurrent structural feature of Heraclitus' style that, it will be argued, serves as a tool to enrich interpretation of his fragments. Named after the bow image used by the philosopher in B51, the ‘bow composition’ will be presented as a narrative technique developed by Heraclitus to reveal his conception of the world. In B51 we read: οὐ ξυνιᾶσιν ὅκως διαϕερόμενον ἑωυτῶι ὁμολογέει· παλίντροπος ἁρμονίη ὅκωσπερ τόξου καὶ λύρης (‘They don't understand how what (...) is in variance agrees with itself, a reciprocal stretching harmony as in the bow and the lyre’). Following an assumption that will be defended later, I argue that Heraclitus attempts through his text to demonstrate how ‘what is in variance agrees with itself’. One of his strategies to this end would be the bow composition, a way to structure his statements in which its first and last terms share the same root but have subtle suffix or prefix differences in order to depict that while being related (ὁμολογέει) they still maintain some difference (διαϕερόμενον). By means of employing such structure to describe reality Heraclitus would imitate the world order in his word order by providing his audience with an analogy that once perceived in the text would teach them how to correctly interpret nature itself. (shrink)

[straipsnis ir santrauka lietuvių kalba; santrauka anglų kalba] Straipsnyje pateikiama savita herakleitiškojo Logo kaip mąstančio kalbėjimo interpretacija. Iš pradžių aptariamos antikinio filosofavimo bendrosios ontologinės ir gnoseologinės prielaidos. Bene svarbiausia šio filosofavimo nuostata yra laikoma mąstymo subjekto ir objekto perskyros reliatyvumas. Todėl į efesiečio aforizmus straipsnyje žiūrima kaip fenomenologines įžvalgas. Laikantis tokio požiūrio, mėginama eksplikuoti efesiečio pagrindinio aforizmo (DK22 B1) turinį. Šio aforizmo prasmė pamažu atskleidžiama pasitelkiant kitus Herakleito aforizmus. Kadangi pavieniai aforizmai ir jų grupės atveria skirtingus herakleitiškojo filosofavimo aspektus, tai (...) tie aspektai straipsnyje nuosekliai ir aptariami. Tariant, kad antikinis filosofavimas yra teorinio mąstymo pastanga asimiliuoti tuometinį dalykinį mąstymą, parodoma, kaip teorinio mąstymo logiškumo, t. y. to paties, matas lemia trinarę tikrovės sampratą bei inspiruoja mąstančiajam egzistencinio tikrumo problemą. Kadangi filosofuojantysis aptinka save lakioje būdravimo plotmėje, o tikrumo gali tikėtis vien tą matą tenkinančio Logo sande, tai jis susiduria su šio sando temizavimo problema. Sapną, būdravimą ir Logą Herakleitas traktuoja kaip nebendramatiškus tikrovės sandus, todėl iškyla klausimas, kaip juos temizuoti viena ir ta pačia kalba. Šią problemą papildomai komplikuoja ta aplinkybė, kad, teikdamas prioritetą mąstymo dalykui, Herakleitas yra priverstas pernelyg sureikšminti kalbos etimologiškumą. Straipsnyje parodoma, kad anksčiau minėtą problemą Herakleitas įveikia eksploatuodamas ontologizuotai traktuojamos kalbos, taigi tiesiog pačios tikrovės totalų metaforiškumą. Straipsnis užbaigiamas išvadomis apie filosofuojančiojo misiją ir egzistencinius įpareigojimus, kuriuos žmogui primeta hierarchizuotai traktuojama trinarė tikrovės samprata. (shrink)