Heraclitus

[Anonymous No.13729418]

Was Heraclitus the peak of Western philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13729420]

>>13729418

[Anonymous No.13729424]

>>13729420

[Anonymous No.13729431]

>>13729418
I prefer Empedocles over Heraclitus. It's not that light and darkness are two sides of the coin, but it's that light and darkness are in continuous tension, with one side eventually banishing the other. For example, Jews are agents of the darkness and seek to banish all light from this world. If you Europeans had picked Zarathustra, who hailed from the glorious steppes, over that abominable and dirty desert nomad, Jesus, then this world would have been a better place, one in which European Saoshyants would have slayed Moloch.
We share nothing in common with the detestable Jew. They are purely of the darkness, purely of the void.

[Anonymous No.13729438]

>>13729431
Are you that Zoroastrian poster who was trying to get some books published?

[Anonymous No.13729804]

Yes

[Anonymous No.13730616]

>>13729418
This is a joke. Heraclitus did nothing but die and leave a near 2k year gap before the 'natural and political sciences', implying any kind of causality and using it to some 'lack' in Taoism, which has no relation at all to either, is a waste of everyone's time

[Anonymous No.13730739]

>>13730616
idk i think there’s a case to be made for his influence, but im not a scholar

[Anonymous No.13731062]

>>13729438
lol he deleted his post out of embarrassment, what a retard. It was some cringeworthy screed about how europeans need to adopt muh zoroastrianism

[Anonymous No.13731152]

>>13731062
I’ve talked with him before on this board. He’s extremely paranoid. Probably just freaked out when I recognized him, and thought I was hacking into his PC or something. He just has a very recognizable posting style, that’s all.

[Anonymous No.13731166]

>>13729418
He was almost immediately overcome by Parmenides, who later went on to retroactively debunk Heraclitus' distant philosophical relative, A.N. Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.13731179]

>>13729418
Everyone from the Ionian School was a talentless hack.

[Anonymous No.13731207]

>>13731166
>retroactively debunk Whitehead
Why have I seen this exact same string of words 5 times in the past 2 days? Is there some war on Whitehead now?

[Anonymous No.13731235]

>>13729418

heraclitus died by burying himself in cow dung in an effort to cure dropsy

[Anonymous No.13731252]

>>13731207
I’ve seen that spam for longer than that. Someone keeps spamming it any time any sort of flux or process philosophy is brought up

[Anonymous No.13731256]

>>13731252
kek, like clockwork
>>13730940

[Anonymous No.13731541]

>>13731235
did he cure the dropsy at least?

[Anonymous No.13731693]

>>13729418
Heraclitus is great but not much of his stuff survived. We don’t have a lot to go on. I choose Plato.

[Anonymous No.13731701]

>>13731693
I heard a theory that Plato was secretly a Heraclitean and that he hid clues about this in his dialogues. Can’t remember any specifics

[Anonymous No.13731705]

>>13729418
muh fragments

[Anonymous No.13732023]

>>13729420
Listen kid, you don't even know Heraclitus. We have fuck nothing to go off of when it comes to his ideas. We can put a good estimation of his views, but even for his time he was an obscure thinker. I'd say between a half and a third the claims made in those three photos about his views are easily contestable.
Whether the theoretical worldview of Heraclitus is the peak of Western philosophy, I don't know. It was never world shattering to me, although I'll admit it seems like his thought foresaw a lot of problems that would come to trouble Western philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13732025]

reminder to read Heidegger on Heraclitus

[Anonymous No.13732062]

>>13732023
>Listen kid

[Anonymous No.13732080]

>>13732023
>but even for his time he was an obscure thinker.
Not exactly. If you wanted to get the ancient Greek version of published you only had a few avenues open to you, Herclitus used the temple based publishers. So to get access to his work you either had to be involved in that part of the temple (or something along those lines) so you could get access to the library and thus the text, or go on like a course through the temple. His work was distributed throughout a number of temples.

He doesn't seem to have been obscure though. There's an argument that Plato didn't directly read him as Heraclitus appears to be fundamentally mischaracterised by what we can gather from fragments, as if Plato heard about his work second hand.

[Anonymous No.13732083]

define "western"

[Anonymous No.13733351]

>>13729418
Heraclitus was based af
The entire western philosophy is a footnote of Plato, Plato is a footnote of Heraclitus

[Anonymous No.13733374]

Heraclitus? more like Hera's clitus

[Anonymous No.13733604]

>>13729420
>>13729424
>His views on the necessity of war stem from a concern with the protection of citizens from suffering harm at the whim of those bent on violently conquering the polis from without or delivering it over to tyranny from within.
I've read Heraclitus and I have no idea how this was derived. What an oversimplification of his view on the necessity of war.

[Anonymous No.13733732]

You can't step into the same Heraclitus twice

[Anonymous No.13733882]

>>13731062
Stfu, I argued Empedocles was better than Heraclitus, but I didn't want to explain such novel ideas because people might plagiarize me.
>>13731152
Go KYS.

[Anonymous No.13734031]

>>13731062
I'm not a retard, dumb faggot. It was a screed about how Empedocles was better than Heraclitus, but I got sidetracked into antisemitism.
>>13731152
Empedocles is better than Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.13734068]

>>13731693
From what we do have though, we can see that Heraclitus had already disputed Plato's forms, by acknowledging nature as a transient unity of conflicting forces.

[Anonymous No.13734075]

>>13734068
Empedocles was better than Heraclitus because he was not afraid to privilege a pole in the "transient conflicting forces". It's more that one side will overcome the other depending on the area, individual, etc. These conflict forces are not a part of any One, but rather, they are of their own self-contained realities.

[Anonymous No.13734095]

>>13734075
>These conflict forces are not a part of any One, but rather, they are of their own self-contained realities.
If there's no "one reality," then there's no way to refer to forces as "these, they, them," no way to identify them at all, and no way to analyze anything, because there would be no connection to anything at all besides whatever's in your own peripheral vision.

[Anonymous No.13734116]

>>13729418
No, he was 50% substance and 50% schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.13734123]

>>13734095
The world could easily be caused by a collision of different processes, realities, or what have you, and what we see is the conflicting activity from said collision.
One can describe reality as a hierarchy and structure of a non-"naturalistic" kind with conflicting processes or "forces" of various types. Moreover, it can also lead to the view of value as a modality of the real and having an epistemic function.
No need for a One, which typically leads to antinomianism.

[Anonymous No.13734173]

>>13734123
There is no "the world" if you're going to disregard the capacity for things to coalesce into it... This is the fundamental difference between Heraclitus and Plato that I was suggesting: "the world" for Heraclitus is the coalescence of conflicting forces, while "the world" for Plato is absolute form. So what you seem to be arguing against is Plato, not Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.13734184]

>>13734173
What I am arguing against is the "coalescence of conflicting forces". It could be the mind is creating the illusion of unity in the world (i.e., look up "Binding Problem"). We could more precisely define the world "the world" as composed of conflicting and irreconcilable forces without much difficulty. The point is, the conflicting forces never blur or lose their distinguishing characteristics.

[Anonymous No.13734192]

>>13734173
What I am arguing against is the "coalescence of conflicting forces". It could be the mind is creating the illusion of unity in the world (i.e., look up "Binding Problem"). We could more precisely define "the world" as made up of conflicting and irreconcilable forces without much difficulty. The point is, the conflicting forces never blur or lose their distinguishing characteristics.

[Anonymous No.13734195]

>>13729418
>Greeks
>Western
yeah okay buddy

[Anonymous No.13734204]

>>13734192
Doesn't sound like the world I live in. Why should I believe this is true when it runs counter to everything I know from experience?

[Anonymous No.13734224]

>>13734204
You're not truly experiencing "reality", which is not One. If you want, I can take you in as a disciple.

[Anonymous No.13734239]

>>13734224
>I can take you in as a disciple
no thanks

[Anonymous No.13734246]

>>13734239
Then remain a nihilistic and depraved scumbag who reduces everything into some kind of all-blurring One. There's not much I can do about it. Hopefully, you can meet Heraclitus in some kind of lower-realm or hell.

[Anonymous No.13734262]

>>13731166
Guenonfag doesn't even like Heraclitus? Damn, now that's philistine. No wonder he worships tribal worshippers.

[Anonymous No.13734273]

>>13731541
No, mostly because he asked for help in the form of a riddle.

[Anonymous No.13734275]

>>13734262
I would pay to watch a shitflinging debate between Guenonfag and the schizo-Zoroastrian poster

[Anonymous No.13734295]

>>13734192
>What I am arguing against is the "coalescence of conflicting forces".
You're not offering a good reason for why these forces supposedly lack the capacity to do as such. Note that the final form of coalescence is unlike the forces themselves, in Heraclitus at least, which is why he wrote about it in a kind of apophatic style. An absolute form does not necessarily manifest like Plato wants it; instead, it is one of a transient nature, like the forces themselves. The forces, because they have the capacity to do as such, coalesce (not by necessity, but by will) and then disperse again, indefinitely, like a cold hand joining with heat and creating the sensation of becoming warmed.

[Anonymous No.13734319]

>>13734295
>Note that the final form of coalescence is unlike the forces themselves, in Heraclitus at least
is not unlike the forces themselves*

[Anonymous No.13734395]

>>13734295
And you're not giving a good reason as to why they bind or coalesce. I also mentioned the "Binding Problem". Moreover, just because they are transient does not mean they necessarily come together as one whole.
Empedocles makes more sense than Heraclitus. This world is more akin to a battleground between Benevolence/Love (φιλότης) and Hatred/Strife (νεῖkος). When you see a being in pain or acting from greed, hatred, or delusion, that is Strife. When you see a being in happiness or acting from wisdom, generosity, or kindness, then that is Love. The idea that these two opposing forces come together in harmony or as a complementary dynamic is nonsense; in fact, they frequently overcome or override one or the other, depending on context. For example, there are places where nothing but hatred, despair, or misery, and likewise, there are areas where nothing but love, happiness, or tranquility exist. Yes, they may be transitory, but the idea that one requires the other for mutual self-identification is nondualist nonsense that ignores the qualitative dimension of each opposing side. Thus, the world becomes more of a collision where it becomes a matter of temporal context of degrees of various kinds rather than a whole that blurs or unites all differences.

[Anonymous No.13735183]

bump

[Anonymous No.13735988]

>>13734395
>The idea that these two opposing forces come together in harmony or as a complementary dynamic is nonsense; in fact, they frequently overcome or override one or the other, depending on context.
It isn't nonsense when you realize that space and time are a continuum. These "beings" that you are referring to are not solid in time. And when some of the things are in a state of becoming, everything they interact with must also be in a state of becoming. And if everything is in a state of becoming, everything is coalescing.

[Anonymous No.13735988,1]

>>13735988
>These "beings" that you are referring to are not solid in time.
Why not? There is definitely a kind of recurring pattern that preserves their identities and functions relative to their opposites.