Heraclitus
Heraclitus was born approximately at 540 B.C, He is one of the aristocratic families of Ephesus, near Colophon. Heraclitus had a reputation as a deliberately obscure thinker. Heraclitus often referred as “The Dark” due to the darkness of his writings.
Even though there is no adequate English translation of the term “Logos” based on the writing, it can be seen that the logos was interpreted by Heraclitus as “The word of God” “Unity in Oppositeness”. Due to the fact that it is the controlling, magnificent force within nature, Heraclitus could simply classify it (Logos) as the mind of God. The fundamental dogma of Heraclitus’s orderliness is the allegation that there is a balanced structure of the solar system and that this structure establishes and maintain the stability of the universe. In order to understand what is “Logos” one should have a soul (Seeing, Hearing, Perception). It is said by Heraclitus that God is always better than men. Unity in Opposites could be interpreted as even though there are things which are the total opposites of each other, they are still able to unite in one unity. For example, Sea could be considered as two things, Sea could be the most pure water for fishes, yet sea water could be the most polluted water for men. For fishes it is drinkable and sanitary, while for men it is undrinkable and deleterious. (Fr. 61)
Moreover, looking further on Heraclitus “Logos” we can say that he thinks that antithesis/opposites make unity. For example, God is day night, winter summer, war peace, satiety hunger (Fr. 67). In this writing, it is safe to say that Heraclitus considered fire as the most fundamental and important element in this world. Heraclitus strongly believes that fire is the most essential com...
... middle of paper ...
...equilibrium is a place where everything is constantly changing. Hence, the idea of fire. Based on this paradigm now we could possibly understand why in the first place Heraclitus uses fire as the most suitable metaphor for the logos as fire never stays in one form, it is always changing. It is probably based on the same reason why Heraclitus likes the nature of river as the river is always changing, new water will continuously flows through replacing the old one, and it will remains the same for a very long period, probably forever.
Moreover, still in the coverage of the previous theory, Heraclitus expanded Anaximander’s idea of the interaction of opposites. Heraclitus views that the animosity between all the opposites’ things in this world is actually universal; it never end. In fact, animosity might be the reason behind why we could have justice and equilibrium.
Bradbury first depicted fire as a hurtful force through Montag, a fireman, who burn books. With the converted mentality of his culture, “it was [Montag’s] pleasure to burn. It was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed” (3). Montag’s culture sees burning as an enjoyment; however, the fire portrayed here demonstrates the destruction of knowledge and personality. While Montag’s profession brings him joy he does not understand that burning is the most permanent form of destruction. He is oblivious to his governments’ strong desire to eliminate the ideas and knowledge that books hold. In this society, where ignorance is bliss and their phobia of unhappiness controls all aspects of life, people believe that their destructive fire “is bright and…clean”, as it is used as a means to keep themselves oblivious and happy (60). In addition, Bradbury establishes the difference in the symbolisms of fire by naming part one of his novel “The Hearth and the Salamander”. The hearth is the fireplace of the home and is the most positive image of fire. This fire contributes warmth and restores relationships between people. The salamander, the symbol of the firemen, and who personify fire’s destruction is contrasted with the hearth, which represents restoration.
The majority of the Encomium of Helen is Gorgias trying to explain that Logos in its many forms could have ca...
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
In conclusion, Fire has 3 different meanings which lead you to new thinking and insight towards the world. Fire represents change which is shown through Montag’s symbolic change from using fire to burn knowledge into using fire to help him find knowledge; fire can represent knowledge as demonstrated through Faber, and fire can represent rebirth of knowledge as demonstrated through the phoenix. Overall fires representation is not one of destruction but one of knowledge, thinking, new insight, and acknowledgment.
Logos is when the speaker or writer appeals to the audience’s logic by constructing a well-reasoned argument. ("Using"13). One way the Jonathan Edwards uses logos is by telling his congregation the cause and effects if their actions in this life. "”It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of all mighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity.”(Edwards 43). By committing sin in their mortal lives without being converted, the unsaved people will spent their eternal life’s burring in the fiery pits of Hell. Another way Edwards uses logos is by getting his congregation to use common sense. "Many that were very lately in the same condition that you are in are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to ilk that has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit.”(Edwards 44). By using logos Edwards gets the congregation to question their selves. If they can have such great happiness by trusting in God, why wouldn’t they be
contrast the God of Epictetus, and the God of Augustine, and in the end, my stand will
The complex pagan religious system of the Romans mirrored that of the Greeks, but what Ovid sought to create was a solid (nearly Bible-like) account of the formation of the world and the source of the multifarious gods. Essentially, Ovid is seeking to rationalize and dogmatize the dozens of deities. Ovid believed that the relationship between the gods and man was reciprocal; they depended on each other for existence:
Among these components and powers there is no generation and demolition—henceforth, no change. The measure of, say, earth on the planet stays consistent, and earth never shows signs of change subjectively. Each of the four elements and the two motive forces, then, are Parmenidean Reals. Be that as it may, there is likewise, on this view, the lower level of reality. The world of tactile experience, the world we observe and hear around us, has a place with this level of reality. This world comes to fruition as an aftereffect of the blending and isolating of the four components as indicated by the strengths of adoration and strife. Despite the fact that there is change, generation, and pulverization in this world, it is not an infringement of the Eleatic requests, Empedocles accepted, on the grounds that these progressions were not occurring on the level of the most genuine things. Empedocles explained how the different mixtures of his elements gave to different substances. He even how differing mixtures can sometimes yield different degrees of the exact same type of substance. For example, the elemental recipe for blood could be varied to create different types of blood, which as a result, would correspond to produce different levels of intelligence in the blood’s
At one time in our lives there is a moment that we may think of ourselves as better than someone or something else. There may also be a point when making a decision leads to a great error in judgment. In the play Oedipus Rex, written by Sophocles, both of these characteristics can be seen in the main character. These characteristics are known as tragic flaws. These flaws are known as hubris meaning excess pride, leading to overconfidence, and hamartia meaning errors and weakness in judgment. Both of these characteristics are the main reason of destruction and downfall in mankind and the tragic hero in this play. The tragic hero is unable to escape his misfortune that is destined to happen. There are many more tragic flaws other than these two that also contribute to the falling of the hero. The destruction and downfall can be seen as fate. Even though the hero chooses his own actions, the resulting consequences that come about are ones that are unable to be changed. As seen, no one is able to outrun his or her own fate.
Aeschylus’ tragic trilogy, the only play to survive from Ancient Greece, repeatedly calls our attention upon a central concept of justice: justice as revenge. This is a relatively simple concept, with a powerful emotional appeal, linking vengeance to the family and their feelings for each other and for their collective honor. However, one must look past this superficial theme in order to fully appreciate and understand the depth and beauty of Aeschylus’ work, and regard it as a philosophical investigation into the concepts of justice rather than a great artistic fiction or a poetic exploration. The former approach is unfortunate because the Oresteia is not a rational argument. It is, on the other hand, an artistic exploration of abstract and theoretical issues. What matters in this case is the complexity of the feeling that emerges from the characters, the imagery, the actions, and the ideas in the story. In other words, the writer is dealing with a case of how human bei...
A simple process formed the backbone of most Greek philosophy. The ancients thought that by combining two equally valid but opposite ideas, the thesis and the antithesis, a new, higher truth could be achieved. That truth is called the synthesis. This tactic of integrating two seemingly opposite halves into a greater whole was a tremendous advance in human logic. This practice is illustrated throughout Oedipus at Colonus in regard to Sophocles’ portrayal of vision, sight, and the eye. In Colonus, there are many and varied descriptions of the aspects of the eye, whether the eye be human or divine. To Sophocles, the eye must have been a synthesis, both physical and spiritual, yet something apart from both.
In The Aeneid, fire is a common symbol and it carries multiple meanings through the epic. Fire is usually seen as a destructive force that can ruin entire cities, as seen in Troy. However, in The Aeneid, one important meaning of fire is the connection between destructive emotions and fire. Symbolic fire can reside in the emotions of the characters and symbolize the fury and passion in their hearts. These emotion are clearly conveyed through Dido and Juno as they make impulsive decisions concerning Aeneas. The Aeneid begins with Juno’s “unforgettable rage” (I.4) towards the Trojans. Juno’s rage is a constant problem for Aeneas as he journeys to Italy. Juno’s rage is seen physically when she manipulates Trojan women to set their own fleet on
Heraclitus’ explanation of the universe was constant flux and opposition that explained everything that happened in nature. He uses a river as an example to explain that the water running is in opposition against the earth but this opposition creates the river, and even though the water in the river is never the same, it’s still a river. He also uses this observation in nature to justify the existence of strife and war because the need for justice and structure is created in accordance to that chaos. Under Heraclitus’ explanation, everything is unified by a rational order called logos that structures the whole universe. He also that through our observations and with the proper senses, someone can gain great understanding about the universe.
Epictetus is one undoubtedly of the most recognized Stoic philosophers of the ancient Greece. His work revolve around control or lack of thereof. In the Enchiridion he makes a distinction between things that are within ones power such as opinion, aim, desire, aversion and whatever affairs are our own and things that are beyond ones power such as body, property, reputation, office, and whatever are not properly our own affairs (Epictetus, 17). But with his advice also come complications for he voices some ideas that might be out of the realm of human capability especially when considering some specific teachings of his. This essay will focus on how some of Epictetus’s ideas are hard to be fully realized by humans, thus challenging and criticizing
While a student at Yale, Stephen Greenblatt came across Lucretius’ De rerum natura, simply looking for something to read over the summer. What he didn’t realize is this poem would have a lasting impact on the way he viewed life, death in particular. To him, De rerum natura was an “astonishingly convincing account of the way things actually are” (Greenblatt 5). However, notice he uses the word “convincing”; Greenblatt himself doesn’t necessarily believe Lucretius’ views, but he understands how Lucretius could’ve drawn these conclusions based on what the people of the first century B.C. knew about the world. The Swerve also intertwines a short biography of Epicurus, who was Lucretius’ “philosophical messiah” and inspiration for the poem, and his view of the world, religion, and way of life (72). Epicurus becomes frustrated when at the age of twelve, “his teacher could not explain to him the meaning of chaos” (74). It is at this time he