Parmeet Singh Majethiya

20BPHI020
Essay 2: Heraclitus
Q2. Explain the doctrine of flux which is attributed to Heraclitus. What is the significance of
‘Logos’ in his thought?
Heraclitus’ doctrine of flux is an extension of his theory regarding opposites where he formulates
that the nature of everything, including events and objects, is characterized by opposites and
opposed processes. Such a theory claiming opposition as the basic nature of things had to meet
with many objections from Plato and Aristotle who thought that this violates the principle of
non-contradiction and seems paradoxical. This violation of the principle of non-contradiction can
be solved if the opposites in Heraclitus’ fragments are predicated to be successive rather than
simultaneous. The underlying notion in this theory is the dynamic condition of the world as
opposed to the idea of a structured or static or stable world which Heraclitus thinks is concealed
by the former idea. From this dynamic notion of the world, he apprises us of the change in
opposed conditions; dynamic to ordered and ordered to dynamic.
The flow of things is what Heraclitus discusses in the fragments B12, B91 and B49a of which the
last two are actually paraphrased by Plato. These fragments are to be viewed in relation to the
change or flow of things that Heraclitus is referring to. B12 talks about the flow of rivers and
people entering into the same rivers. There is a lot of ambiguity regarding what the phrase ‘the
same rivers’ is trying to mean. The basic derivation we arrive at the general evaluation of the
three fragments is ‘things are constantly changing’. Further, we are perplexed when we arrive at
a claim that ‘all things are constantly changing’ but then we find fragments like B1, B2 and B30
which make us ponder whether there is something that remains unchanged.
There is also a question that needs to be addressed regarding the sequence of this theory. That the
co-presence of opposites leads to the doctrine of flux or that the flux is the co-presence of
opposites. Plato and Aristotle both hold the view that a doctrine of opposites is central to any
explanation of change. One more quandary we face is the what Heraclitus meant by change. Is it
‘alteration’ in the sense that things are replaced continuously or change in spatial sense? There is
no distinction made in this regard. Close examination of the fragments reveals that the change
that Heraclitus is apprising is not really spatial but temporal change instead, change not just
related to change in place but in state.
Whatever be the kind of change, the identity of an object is preserved suggesting us that there is
something that doesn’t change which we can term as ‘essential qualities’. Now, if these essential
qualities are static would mean saying all things change only in some respects and that seems to
be true and trivial. Or looking the other way round, all things change in all respects would be
false.
Plato holds an extreme view of this doctrine where the changing nature of things makes it
extremely difficult to characterize them. Such a nature of things where they are not static and are
constantly changing would mean we would never be able to grasp the essence of things because
the moment we understand something, the next moment it would change into something else and
the knowledge we end up with will be worthless. This has a consequence that Plato reaches, that
is the impossibility of knowledge.
In B50, Heraclitus clearly apprises that ‘all things are one’ and that opposites are same. This
seems to be contradicting the very basis of the doctrine of flux. Aristotle would have found this
irksome as it violates the principle of non-contradiction. There is a need to distinguish both these
claims as they are talking two different things. The unity thesis is a universal claim regarding the
whole while the thesis regarding opposites is a claim about objects or events in the world. It is
difficult to distinguish what should be construed of ‘all things are one’. Aristotle seems to have
decoded, briefly, what can this mean. He explains this as ‘all things are one’ because of same
genus. For example, horses and men have the same genus, that is, animal. There is another
mysterious fragment B67, where Heraclitus introduces us to God. He is seen as dissolving the
traditional divide between humans and God by associating him with nature.
‘Logos’ can be construed as an account, speech or order. It plays a significant role in construing
what Heraclitus meant by one in ‘all things are one’. He says that logos is something which
cannot be easily understood by humans with human knowledge. He acknowledges is lack of faith
in human knowledge because humans have partial knowledge and have a private understanding
of things which they think as their wisdom but which are in reality just opinions. According to
Heraclitus, humans experience the logos but remain uncomprehending of it. This may suggest
that human senses are not enough to comprehend the logos. They are unable to penetrate the
truth because of they live in a world of appearances. Logos also means reason which can be
construed to be suggesting us to move beyond sensory-experience. Extraordinary consciousness
is required to understand the nature of logos which remains hidden to ordinary people (B26).
The meaning of logos, as Heraclitus tries to point out, is not quite clear. But nonetheless, it is
significant in our understanding of the unity thesis and to the common people as well, according
to Heraclitus, in order to know the reality of the working of the world. It is the basis for all
experience and it itself is the condition for all experience. What seems us to be a blatant violation
of the principle of non-contradiction (written in complete accord with Aristotle’s feelings), in the
doctrine of flux and the unity thesis, logos is something which bridges the gap between these
theses and saves us from obtaining a contradictory view of them. Logos is the principle of
change and all the things are bound by it and it is the real object of knowledge.