{"id":7528,"date":"2018-12-15T13:53:48","date_gmt":"2018-12-15T13:53:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/?p=7528"},"modified":"2020-06-20T22:38:47","modified_gmt":"2020-06-20T22:38:47","slug":"heraclitus-metaphysical-doctrine-dk-40-and-35","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/2018\/12\/heraclitus-metaphysical-doctrine-dk-40-and-35\/","title":{"rendered":"Heraclitus\u2019 Metaphysical Doctrine: DK 40 and 35"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Ryan Smith<\/strong><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

\u201cMuch learning does not teach understanding, otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Hecataeus.\u201d (DK 40)<\/p>\n

Learning is not insight into the Logos<\/em>, but conceptual thought. The more we attach ourselves to conceptual knowledge, the further our minds wander from the Logos<\/em>. The same holds true of the Logos<\/em> itself. The more we think about the Logos<\/em> as a concept, the harder it will be for us to actually experience it. Conversely, it is cessation of conceptual knowledge that opens the mind to the Logos<\/em>. There is no path that can lead from the accumulation of knowledge to insight into the Logos<\/em>. In fact, the opposite is true: The more we \u201cknow\u201d things with the aid of concepts and universals, the harder it will be for us to obtain a genuine experience of the Logos<\/em>.[1]<\/p>\n

Xenophanes knew a great many things about the customs of cities and peoples, but he did not know the Logos<\/em>. Pythagoras knew much about numbers and spiritual doctrines, but his knowledge was based on speculation and acquaintance. It was not born of a genuine intuitive experience of the true principle of the universe, namely the Logos<\/em>. Hesiod too catalogued whatever was \u201cknown\u201d by men of his time, but he did not see the one metaphysical principle governing everything (and the same goes for Hecataeus).[2] If it were possible for knowledge to yield insight, these men would have seen the same truth as Heraclitus, since this truth is not a personal or particular truth, but an un-willed and un-thought principle that is true at all times and experienced alike by everyone who genuinely catches sight of it.[3] But understanding the Logos<\/em> is different from being acquainted any type of mundane knowledge. Knowledge is co-created as a synthesis between the raw experience of reality and the reifying faculties of men\u2019s minds. The Logos<\/em> is an intuitive experience that is unlike any kind of ordinary knowledge, thought, or feeling. It is not itself knowledge, but rather an insight and a lived experience. One cannot become the other, much as polishing a lump of mud will not turn mud into gold.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

\u201cMen who love wisdom should acquaint themselves with a great many particulars.\u201d (DK 35)<\/p>\n

In other fragments, Heraclitus says that accumulations of particulars do not yield true understanding.[4] But in this fragment, he says that \u201cmany particulars\u201d are necessary for wisdom. Why the contradiction? The question can be answered as follows: Amassing knowledge of particulars in accordance with the mind\u2019s reifying bias blinds us to the nature of the Logos<\/em>, which is really one.[5] Paying extreme attention to the particulars before us, without reifying them or adding to the raw experience of reality itself, will lead to the Logos<\/em>. The Logos<\/em> can only be seen when we are not engaged in conceptual thought. If we acquaint ourselves with \u201ca great many particulars\u201d with the aid of the mind\u2019s conceptualizing faculties, we turn away from the Logos<\/em>.[6] But if we are hyper-aware of reality as it appears to us, without adding concepts to that experience, or reifying elements of it, we catch a clue to the Logos<\/em>.[7]<\/p>\n

When we reify our perceptions, we add elements of stability, universality, and identity to them. But in the empirical domain, there is only radical flux, devoid of universals and unchanging objects. Indeed, there are only particulars. Hence, the perception of particulars is a necessary prerequisite for catching sight of the Logos<\/em>. That is, we must be hyper-nominalists \u2013 not simply aware that our models of universals and conceptual ideas are ultimately false, but verily, to have no such models at all.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

[1] Parmenides: “\u2026according to opinion \u2026 humans have established a name [for each thing].” (19.1-4)<\/p>\n

[2] Heraclitus: “The Lightning steers everything.” (DK 64)<\/p>\n

[3] Heraclitus: “Though this Logos<\/em> holds true evermore, [most] men are unable to understand it\u2026” (DK 1) cf. “It is wise to listen, not to me but to the Logos<\/em>… ” (DK 50)<\/p>\n

[4] Heraclitus: “Much learning does not teach understanding\u2026” (DK 40)<\/p>\n

[5] Heraclitus: “Listening \u2026 to the Logos, it is wise to acknowledge that all things are one.” (DK 50) cf. “Wisdom is one and unique\u2026” (DK 32) cf. “Wisdom is one \u2013 to know the principle which steers all things through all things.” (DK 41)<\/p>\n

[6] And thus become “deceived in [our] acquaintance with things that are manifest\u2026” Heraclitus (DK 56)<\/p>\n

[7] Heraclitus: “\u2026 [people do not] grasp [the true nature of] things even when they have learned about them, although they think they do.” (DK 17)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Ryan Smith *** \u201cMuch learning does not teach understanding, otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Hecataeus.\u201d (DK 40) Learning is not insight into the Logos, but conceptual thought. The more we attach ourselves to conceptual knowledge, the further our minds wander from the Logos. The same holds true of the[\u2026] Continue Reading<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-psychology"],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7528"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7528\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7530,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7528\/revisions\/7530"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}