Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Logos has many different translations and uses in the Greek language. It can
literally mean ‘something spoken’, a ‘saying’, ‘word’, ‘sentence’ or ‘oration’. It
can also mean ‘thought’, ‘intention’, ‘idea’ or ‘illocution’. It derives from lego,
meaning ‘to speak’ or ‘to say’ (lexis, meaning ‘word’ or ‘phrase’, is also derived
from this). Usually the term is translated as ‘account’, a record or narrative of
events. The extensive range of meanings and uses of the word logos has lead to
varying explanations of its meaning from Heraclitus’ interpreters.
Heraclitus says that the universe is divisible and indivisible, generated and
ungenerated, mortal and immortal, Word and Eternity, Father and Son, God and
Justice. “Listening not to me but to the account, it is wise to agree that all things
are one”, Heraclitus says... that the universe is the Word, always and for all
eternity, he says in this way: “Of this account which holds forever men prove
uncomprehending, both before they hear it and when first they have heard it. For
although all things come about in accordance with this account, they are like
tiros as they try words and deeds of the sort which I expound as I divide each
thing according to nature and say how it is.”
This interpretation suggests that the logos is the divine will of God and the
universe is the manifestation of this will. This seems to fit with Heraclitus’ other
descriptions of the logos’ relation to the universe. However, Hippolytus’
interpretation of logos is biased towards a Christian conception of God and
creation, as his agenda in the Refutation is to discredit heresies – in this case,
the heresy of Noetus, who he presumed to be influenced by Heraclitus. From his
other uses of the term, it isn’t clear that Heraclitus’ idea of the logos is
consistent with the personal, monotheistic idea of God found in the Judeo-
Christian tradition.
The part this concept has in Heraclitus’ extended philosophy set out in the
fragments of his works On Nature will now be explored. The logos seems to
reveal a unity in nature to Heraclitus. The apparent existence of opposites and
plurality are purportedly illusory; that people distinguish them from each other is
a mistake. “It is wise”, he says, “listening not to me but to the account, to agree
that all things are one”. He speaks often in paradoxes, stating that “immortals
are mortals, mortals immortal”. He seems to reconcile these opposites with his
claim of unity in the logos with a kind of duality; each thing would not exist
without its opposite: “Disease makes health pleasant and good, hunger satiety,
weariness rest”. It has already been stated that Heraclitus regards the logos as
an account shared by all men, so the logos is important in that it is that which
unites all things, including human thought.
The idea of the logos as divine law has great importance in Heraclitus’ political
thought. He claims that “all human laws are nourished by the one divine; for it is
as powerful as it wishes, and it suffices for all, and it prevails”; the laws that
humans make have their root in the logos, the natural order. People ought to live
by their laws dutifully since they ultimately come from the logos – “The people
must fight for the law as for their city wall”. However, Heraclitus apparently
acknowledges that the divine law is superior to human law and it is necessary to
listen directly to the logos rather than human law: “It is law also to listen to the
counsel of one”; “One alone is wise, unwilling and willing to be called by the
name of Zeus” (here he identifies the logos with a god, though he suggests that
this being is both unwilling and willing to be identified with Zeus, indicating a
peculiar scepticism for the religions of his society – his idea of God is perhaps
closer to an embodiment of order and justice than a personal God).
His belief that the logos is hidden and difficult to access by people who have no
comprehension of themselves doubtlessly inspires his elitism, misanthropy and
opposition to democracy. That he regards those who do not understand the
logos as ‘tiros’ (savages) is telling. It is thought that he wrote in such obscure
language as a way of ensuring that only the worthy would comprehend it.
Proclus makes Heraclitus’ distrust of common people explicit:
The excellent Heraclitus rightly excoriates the mob as unintelligent and irrational.
For “what thought or sense”, he says, “do they have? They follow the popular
singers and they take the crowd as their teacher, not knowing that most men are
bad and few good.” Thus Heraclitus – which is why [Timon] called him ‘the reviler
of the mob’.
Most people do not comprehend the logos, and do not appreciate the superiority
of the unapparent truth over what is immediately visible. Even extensive
learning does not provide this comprehension, he claims, otherwise his
predecessors, such as Pythagoras, would have understood it. Only through
introspection can one discover the proper way of comprehending the divine
account; “I inquired into myself”, he says, and often emphasises the virtue of
self-knowledge and self-control. People do not understand the unity of opposites
either: “They do not comprehend how, in differing, it agrees with itself – a back-
turning harmony”. Thus Heraclitus is led to think that the vast majority of people
are foolish and unaware of the truth, and therefore are undeserving of political
power.
One of the most significant aspects of Heraclitean philosophy is the theory that
the universe and everything in it are in constant flux, expressed by the phrase
‘panta rhei’, ‘everything flows’ (the attribution of this phrase to Heraclitus is
likely apocryphal since it does not appear in any of his surviving quotations).
Heraclitus believes that the universe is not something which has a beginning or
an end, but is constantly undergoing creation and conflagration; he believes that
fire is the fundamental principle of matter and the primordial element from which
the other elements arise, since fire is both creative and destructive: “This world,
which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is
now, and ever shall be an ever-living Fire, with measures kindling and measures
going out.” This is inextricably linked with his theory of the unity of opposites
and the creative power of conflict. Fire as a fundamental principle seems to be
separate to the logos in Heraclitus’ natural philosophy, but it is perhaps a
manifestation of cosmic justice as it represents conflict and rebirth.
Nevertheless, it is not clear what role the logos has in Heraclitus’ theory of flux;
it may be that it is the only permanent aspect of the universe, the substratum
beneath the constant change. So, while Heraclitus claims the Sun is new every
day since it is nourished by ever-changing flame, one might conjecture that the
permanence and order of the Sun’s movement represents the divine law of the
logos in his analogy. Similarly, “in the same rivers ever different waters flow”,
and “we step and do not step into the same rivers” – Heraclitus may be trying to
convey the changing nature of the universe while emphasising that the logos
remains the same through the analogy of a river, as a river is still the same river
though its waters are constantly being replaced.
Some fragments seem to suggest that Heraclitus identifies the logos with fire
itself: “The thunderbolt steers all things” – as if fire is the divine law which
manages universal flux. However, Heraclitus’ writings tend to use fire in a
different context from the concept of logos, and he does not explicitly describe
them as the same thing. He does state that people whose souls are drier, since
they contain more fire, are wiser, while people with moist souls are foolish: “A
dry soul is wisest and best”; “A man when he is drunk is led by a beardless boy,
stumbling, not knowing where he goes, his soul moist”. Whether this amounts to
an opinion that fire is the logos within the soul is a possible interpretation.
Bibliography
Barnes, J. (1987). Early Greek Philosophy (2001 2nd revised ed.). (J. Barnes, Ed.,
& J. Barnes, Trans.) London: Penguin.
Russell, B. (1946). History of Western Philosophy (1961 2nd ed.). London: George
Allen & Unwin Ltd.