Brian Hamilton

Heraclitus’ Criticism by Contrast

My impression is that Heraclitus comes across in most contemporary expositions as as lacking the capacity for moral criticism. Heraclitus, they say, was primarily interested in the way that opposites create each other, so to speak: the way the presence of disease gives meaning to health and the presence of war gives meaning to peace.

True enough. One of Heraclitus’ most fascinating (and well-expressed) insights is the contingency of moral preference and the interconnectedness of opposites. The fragments regarding the former are well known: “donkeys prefer trash to gold,” he says, and “pigs enjoy filth more than pure water.” And that one can only grasp certain ideas alongside their opposites—“things whole, things not whole; being brought together, being separated; consonant, dissonant”—is a point that many contemporary theologians have used to speak of the difference between church and world. Neither the church nor the world is a standalone entity, since there would be no church, no alternative community for whom Jesus is Lord, if there were no world who needed an alternative.

But an exposition that leaves Heraclitus solely concerned with the sameness of opposites omits another aspect of his discussion of opposites. This use is more subtle:

If it were not in Dionysus’ honour that they make a procession and sing a hymn to shameful parts, their deed would be a most shameful one. But Hades and Dionysus, for whome they rave and celebrate the festival of the Lenaea, are the same! (Fragment 15)

It makes sense, Heraclitus sneers, that these absurd and shameful festivals should be celebrated to Dionysus. But in their madness, they miss that they are celebrating also the god of the underworld! Are these the words of one who takes all opposites as necessary to each other? Or again, perhaps more clearly:

The bow’s name is ‘life’, but it’s job is death! (Fragment 48)

This quip rests on a word play with the Greek βιος (bios). With an accent over the omicron, the meaning is “bow.” With an accent over the iota, the meaning is “life.” How could he mean this except as an ironic criticism of the use of a bow?

It seems at odds with many of his other statements, but my take is this: although Heraclitus usually plays with opposites to emphasize the flux and contingency of life, preference, and even morality, there remains another use of opposites—perhaps ironic opposites—that serves as a basis for moral critique. This would account for some of his more direct moral criticisms, and would seem to work more coherently with a λογος (logos) that “holds forever” and that remains “universal.”

(In my entry for the Fragments, I’ve included several quotes on Heraclitus’ understanding of war and justice.)

24 February 2006 |
tags: Philosophy, Theological Ethics