Heraclitean Flux and Unity of Opposites in Plato`s

Transcription

Heraclitean Flux and Unity of Opposites in Plato's "Theaetetus" and "Cratylus"
Author(s): Matthew Colvin
Source: The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Dec., 2007), pp. 759-769
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27564109 .
Accessed: 28/04/2014 18:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.66 on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:55:35 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
759
NOTES
SHORTER
OF
AND
FLUX AND UNITY
HERACLITEAN
IN PLATO'S
OPPOSITES
THEAETETUS
CRATYLUS1
flux
Heraclitean
a large
plays
in Plato's
role
Theaetetus
and
Yet
Cratylus.
Heraclitus
himself did not hold anything like the Flusslehre of these dialogues.2 If this is true,
then
an explanation
of
the fact must
account
for
both
terms
the philosophical
of
the
dialogues and fragments ('How do the two thinkers differ?'), and for Plato's literary
depiction of Heraclitus
('Why does Plato treat Heraclitus as he does?'). These
are
questions
because
significant
subsequent philosophical
Aristotle's
doctrine
of
replacement
one
of
notion
the
has
flux
played
a
large
in
role
of the persistence of identity through change.
conceptions
an underlying
to undergo
the
change?requiring
subject
its
the
basic
property
by
opposite?reflects
assumption:
namely,
of
if a thing is changing in some way, it cannot also have its identity (idem-?ty) in terms
of
that
change,
but
time of Aristotle,
in terms
only
some
of
other
that
aspect
is so deeply
this assumption
remains
the
same.
By
the
rooted that in seeking to define
a concessive
to contrast
he uses
clause
with
participial
change
oo/cet
etvat
ev
Si
iSiov
r? ravr?v
Kal
identity:
rrjs ovoias
fiaXiora
ov r v ivavri
v efvat
to substance
'it is especially
that
oe/crt/c?v,
peculiar
?pidfjLCu
one
in number,
the same
it is capable
of
and
contraries'
while
being
receiving
one
is
same'
and
is another.
'one
the
(Categories
4al0-ll).
Change
thing;
being
substance
(ouata)
numerical
Aristotle
had
plenty
for
of precedent
this contrast.
holds the same assumption. But first, Iwould
does
we
As
shall
see, Plato's
Heraclitus
like to establish that the realHeraclitus
not.
I.HERACLITUS'
the point
Although
has
been
made
DOCTRINE
would
before,31
to present
like
of flux in Plato's dialogues
for thinking that the conception
some
new
reasons
is not derived from
Heraclitus
not permit
the considerable
does
interaction
with
literature
any
Space
over Heraclitus'
own view
the sharp
of flux.
But
since my
controversy
are two
There
is about
let the following
suffice.
which
Plato,
images
as examples:
uses
one
B12
is the river, of course
It
has
been
(fr.
DK)4.
discussed
in great depth
Heraclitus.
spawned
by
main
point
and
antiquity
Yet
discussions
involving
in modern
of
flux?namely,
comparison
the
in all its varying versions,
times
river
that
as
the
never
almost
of
statement
the
of the two is enough
make
kvk?ojv,
and has been taken both
of Heraclitus'
reference
or
to disqualify
barley
to
in
flux doctrine.
alleged
the other main
image
cocktail
(fr. B125
DK).
A
the idea that the river fragment
1I
on an earlier draft, and
would
for his helpful criticisms
like to thank Prof. James Lesher
Irwin and Gail Fine for stimulating my thinking on this subject.
Profs. Terence
2 I write
of G. S. Kirk, Heraclitus:
in the minority
tradition
The Cosmic
Fragments2
Heraclitus:
Greek Text with a Short Commentary2
(Cambridge,
1962) and M. Marcovich,
(Sankt
flux for Heraclitus,
and is represented
preserve
2001). The majority
Augustin,
opinion would
most
'Heraclitus:
the river-fragments
and their implications',
Elenchos
20
strongly by L. Taran,
'On Heraclitus',
AJPh 76 (1955), 339-40; W. K.C. Guthrie,
'Flux and
(1999), 9-52; G. Vlastos,
in Heraclitus',
in A. P. D. Mourelatos
Logos
(ed.), The Presocratics.
(New York,
1974); and
C. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus
1979), 147-53.
(Cambridge,
3
Kirk (n. 2), 228.
4 I
are spurious.
that the other river-fragments
agree with Marcovich
(n. 2), 194-214
760
SHORTER
a flux
teaches
that
is radical
(more
NOTES
than
explanatory
fundamentally
other
any
of
way
looking at the river) or global (that is, true of all things, not just rivers) or total (true
of every aspect of the river, and if globally applied, then of other things too). Yet in
both of the fragments, Heraclitus'
language is carefully chosen to point out the
of
union
paradoxical
and
stability
flux:
those
'Upon
who
into
step
same
the
different and still different waters flow' and 'The cocktail disintegrates
in question
is not motion
of the two
the
fragments,
unity
moved.'
flux
The
In these
rivers,
unless it is
but motion
of stability.
simply,
productive
con
is the hidden
the
truth,
'unapparent
nection' (d(f)avr)s dppiovir], fr. 54 DK), which it isHeraclitus' self-appointed mission
to reveal. The opposition of flux and stability is a starting point patent even to people
likeHesiod (fr. 57 DK), to be subverted by the examples of the river and the cocktail.
Flux inHeraclitus is always presented along with stability in the service of the unity
of opposites; it is not an ultimate principle to which everything else must be reduced;
not
it does
or
things
go 'all the way
to their identity;
is that
point
Without
flux
and
in the case
constitutes
these
is a mere
the cocktail
flux,
down';
indeed,
it does
not
of
a threat
pose
the river
them
gives
of disparate
objects,
collection
and
to our
the cocktail,
their
character.
respective
without
ingredients;
of
knowledge
Heraclitus'
flux,
the river is only two slopes and a ditch: for things like cocktails and rivers, change or
motion
is what
just
them
makes
one
'numerically
and
the
II. PLATO'S FLUX AND COMPRESENCE
same'.
OF OPPOSITES
In Plato, by contrast, flux is not presented as half of a paradoxical unity of opposites;
instead, both flux itself and the unity of opposites are considered as phenomena
inherent
in the nature
can
rise
give
the
sensibles.
two problems,
These
are nonetheless
Plato
vocabulary
specific
epistemological
For
of
to the other),
difficulties
though
clearly
distinguished
to describe
the
employs
is, one
(that
each other
by
and
the
phenomena
related
from
that arise from them.
or sensibles,
or forms per
in flux (material
things
objects,
in themselves.
But
this is not obvious.
diachronic
change
of Plato's
studies
that repeat Aristotle's
doctrine
explanation
Plato,
undergoing
the many
solution
although
denominated
to the problem
the doctrine
of
of
the flux
of
separated
Plato
had
the
sensible
forms
is
world,5
indeed
T. H.
an
impossibile)
In response
Irwin
answer
of
forms
are
to
as a
that
proposes
a problem
to
was not the succession
in mind
in
of properties
saw the compresence
that Plato
Irwin
of opposed
Instead,
suggests
objects.6
as a species
in sensible
that it is this flux,
and not
of
'flux', and
objects
properties
to
and
In
which
Plato
avoid
stable
forms.
immaterial
succession,
by positing
sought
'flux',
the flux
sensible
5
Metaph.
Heraclitean
'From his youth
and the
a6, 987a29-b7:
[Plato] was familiar first with Cratylus
that all things are always
flowing
(?et peovr
v) and that there is no
opinions
about them; and these things he held even later. But Socrates concerned
himself with
knowledge
and sought out the universal
and was the
ethics, and not at all with the nature of the universe,
first to focus his thought on definitions,
[Plato] agreed with him, but because of the former (sc. his
Heraclitean
that this [a d?finition] was of other things, and not of sensibles.
doctrine),
supposed
For it was impossible
that the common
definition
should be of any sensible things, since they are
(n. 2), 212-13 may be taken as typical of the
always changing
(?ei ye perafiaXXovr
v).' Guthrie
to accept
Irwin opposes:
the impossiblity
of
interpretation
'Impressed
by this, but unwilling
Plato posited a permanent
the physical world.'
reality outside
knowledge,
6
27 (1977),
T. H. Irwin,
'Plato's Heracleiteanism',
1-13, especially
p. 12: 'Plato's
PhilosQ
for Forms did not rely, and Aristotle
knew it did not rely, on s-change
in the sensible
argument
world.'
SHORTER
responding
opposites.
Irwin
to Irwin,
to clarify
I hope
to diachronic
refers
change
761
NOTES
the nature
of
of Plato's
as
properties
and
flux
that
's-change',7
of
compresence
is
suc
'the
cession of properties in the same subject over time'.8 This is the brand of flux that the
tradition
to Cratylus.
ascribes
not
Now,
every
instance
and total; some might
properties need be constant
of
or
s-change
of
succession
be intermittent and limited to
in the Theaetetus
But
and Cratylus,
this s-change
is run out
aspects.
so that everything
is experiencing
in
this succession
and
constantly
seem
not
total
Constant
and
succession
of properties,
does
however,
respect.
what
since
'it is discussed
in the Theaetetus,
thinks
about
Plato
and is
sensibles,
certain
to an
extreme,
every
Irwin suggests
that the synchronie
Accordingly,
terms
is understood
'a-change'
('aspect-change'),
of flux,
the fact that there is not necessarily
despite
rejected'.9
which
he
type
Irwin
is ready
to concede
that
the Theaetetus
deals
with
compresence
by Plato
any
there
of
opposites,
as a
and Aristotle
to
time-dimension
s-change,
to be
and
it.10
that Aristotle
(Metaph. 1010a) thinks that this sort of flux, if sufficiently severe in degree and rate, is
destructive of knowledge. But Plato is not mentioned inMetaph.
1010's critique of
Cratylean
s-change.
knew
and Aristotle
motivation
for
the problem
with
this than that'.12
Irwin
it did
separated
sensibles
that
for Forms
did not
'Plato's
argument
rely,
n
in the sensible
world.'
the
Instead,
rely, on s-change
is the compresence
of opposites
in sensible
forms
objects:
is that they are never
'no more
but always
'just one thing',
concludes
not
with
Irwin's
is two-fold:
of
first, mere
compresence
difficulty
explanation
seem
not
to
concern
to guard his forms
does
be
Plato's
from
'flux';13 second,
opposites
diachronic
is different
from his concern
about
the synchronie
qualitative
change
His
two
of opposite
diction
makes
this difference
clear. The
compresence
qualities.
The
problems
immaterial
are not
Ibims,
the
that
same
in Plato's
is no proof
mind;
that unity
both
though
of opposites
may meet
is a species
their
solution
in
of flux.14
7
Irwin (n. 7), 2.
8
T. H. Irwin, Plato's Ethics
1995), 161.
(Oxford,
9
Irwin (n. 7), 10.
10
This
is the objection
of C. Kahn,
'Plato and Heraclitus',
Proceedings
of the Boston Area
in Ancient Philosophy
1 (1985), 244: 'In Greek as in English,
the words for motion
and
Colloqium
change imply a temporal dimension.'
11
Irwin (n. 7), 12.
12
in Republic
As is stated, for instance,
with
its contrast
between
forms and
475E9-476A7,
sensibles on this score.
13
Irwin (n. 9), 161 states that 'We ought not to assume, then, that when Plato speaks of flux he
must have succession
inmind; and so we ought not to be surprised when he begins by speaking of
... we should
and continues
compresence
by speaking of change
simply suppose that he assumes
a broad interpretation
of flux.'
14
to buttress
Gail Fine attempts
Irwin's view with the following
'in the Tht.
textual evidence:
as
for example, Plato counts cases of compresence,
(152D2-E9),
along with cases of succession,
ever is, but things are always
to be
all alike
the thesis that "nothing
illustrating
coming
are types of "flux and change"
In (152E1),
both compresence
and succession
(yiyverai)."
Criticism
(152E8).' Cf. G. Fine, On Ideas: Aristotle's
of Plato's Theory of Forms, (Oxford,
1995),
55. Yet it is not compresence
of opposites
that is called
'flux' in Tht. 152D2-E9,
but rather,
at one point in time, relative to one observer or circumstance,
observed
presence of one opposite
and then the presence of the other opposite
observed
later in time, relative to another observer or
circumstance.
This is diachronic
flux. The change
itself may be relative
s-change, garden-variety
or absolute.
see R. Polansky,
On this point,
and
(so-called
'Cambridge
change')
Philosophy
on Plato's Theaetetus,
A Commentary
Knowledge:
1992), 95.
(Lewisburg,
762
SHORTER
problems generated by flux in the Theaetetus?unlike
The epistemological
by
generated
Phaedo?are
synchronie
described
in explicitly
over
Theaetetus
of opposites
compresence
not
said to be a result of
it is marked
time'.
By
Socrates
gains
motion
tional
with
in the Republic,
opposites
diachronic
Socrates
language.15
of
compresence
to the growing
vvv piiv ju, t?a> e?vai, voTtpov
The
and
now,
later,
less').
relative
indeed,
NOTES
the course
same
two comparisons
the space of a year
or
becomes
'less'
(iv iviavTco...
... I am
greater
to illustrate
is used
height,
In that dialogue,
the compresence
described
with
markers
any diachronic
the
characteristic,
in Phaedo
102B1-5.16
is not
and
flux,
an indicator
is
-
the particle
of synchronicity,
'at the same
dpia,
in the Theaetetus
is defined
in stages. First,
k?vttjois
not only
rota
for including
but also
locomotion,
of
the concept
assent
Theodorus'
contrast,
in place?both
of
iXaTTOj?'within
Si
those
Timaeus,
diachronic
removes
he
changes?then
as
motion
a
criterion entirely (orav Si fj piiv iv too avTo)?'whenever a thing be in the same place'
181C9-D1) and admits qualitative change (dXXo?ojois, 181D2) as a sort of Kivinois as
well. We might imagine that by abstracting the temporal aspect as well, change could
a species
of compresence
removes
since he never
be rendered
not
Plato's,
Plato
True,
discusses
and
from
a process
of
answer
on whatever
change,
sort,
peculiar
from
aspect
every
thus"'
is flowing
into another
'change
the compresence
and
white
further
pir)
is equally
colour
also
white
flux,
in the Theaetetus.
But
it is of
not
the
temporal
in motion,
route:
both
correct,
is accomplished
as an example,
flux
experiences
and
of
supposition,
conclusion.17
in his
by removing
'if all things
"it is thus"
gradually
gets Theodorus
its whiteness,
are
and
"it
is not
in Theaetetus
to agree
so
a
that
that
a
is a
there
colour'
eis dXXrjv xp?av).
So far, Plato
has got, not
(pieTa?oXr)
or of
but of diff?rents?that
and green
is, of white
opposites,
or white
a
and black
less than of white
and not-white.
He makes
of
red,
move
no
toward
and
op?v
a circuitous
subject
uses
first
Socrates
that
but
183A). This move
(Theaetetus
182D-E.
flow
opposites
and total
via
even
too,
radical
be our
this would
aspect,
temporal
of
compresence
derived
But
of opposites.
the
of
compresence
?XXrj
and
aiodrjois
concludes
that predication
opposites,
and
subject,
is equally
anything
correct,
aXXr)
is impossible,
follows
both
in 182E,
opposites
pir)
from
aiodrjois.
From
since words might
a contradiction:
"it is thus"
where
and
"it is not
'every
thus"
he
specifies
op?v
Socrates
this,
and
then
as well be their own
answer,
'
. . . This
on whatever
is a stronger
point than the immediate observation Theodorus had made in response to the
constant change of colour. He had said that itwould be impossible to give any name
to a colour
that would
'properly
apply
to
it' (opdeos
Trpooayopeveiv).
Theodorus
grounds this difficulty on the fact that each thing, 'since it is in flux' (are piov),
'moves
Naming
out
from
under
you
while
you're
speaking'
(XeyovTos
vireCipxtrai).
things that are in flux is like trying to force the Scythians to fight a set-piece
15
G. E. L. Owen, A proof
in the 77EP7 IAEQIf,
JHS 11 (1957),
103-11 at 108, n. 34, notes
that Plato describes
the compresence
of opposites with the adverbs ajixa (Republic 524E2, 525A4,
ovra (Phaedo 74B8 with
102B-C and
523C1, D5) and aet (479B8), and with the phrase raura
are any of the words
Prm.
for flux used, nor is there any
129B6). In none of these passages
indication
that time must elapse, nor is any Heracliteanism
in view.
16
is unlike Simmias
Tallness
in part because
to be tall and short at the same
it 'is never willing
. .).
time' (r? p?yeQos
ovS?nore
?d?Xeiv ?pia p?ya Kal opiKp?v
e?vai.
17
on this passage
Irwin (n. 9), 162, commenting
of Theaetetus
calls the phenomenon
inmy opinion,
since he allows that time must pass to bring
'compresence'?confusingly
especially
'
...
are the result of motion,
it about:
'These appearances
of compresence
change, and mingling
(emphasis
mine).
763
NOTES
SHORTER
battle.18 Yet if a thing is changing from orange to red, I would be more (?xaXXov)
correct in calling it orange than in calling it yellow.19 Such an appellation would not of
course apply opdws, but itwould apply better than some others. This sort of flux does
not
rule
out
it does not make
reference
only
imprecise.
impossible,
of opposites,
must
Socrates
'one
further,
replacing
clarify
with
and
After
this modification,
'not-seeing'.
'seeing'
to another
from one quality
but
merely
nearby,
changing
approximations;
to arrive at unity
and
'another
colour'
In order
colour'
are
the objects
from
away
no
longer
to the opposite
and
quality,
but en route from opposite
of any given name
is just
one
merely
changing,
that the negation
one.
Because
the changing
is, not
quale
to opposite,
Socrates
is able to conclude
an appellation
as correct
for a thing as the
original name for it. This inference would not have been possible if the change had
not been from opposite to opposite. Something that is changing from X to not-X isX
in a way,
always
but
also
(ov
pi?XXov
out
'slipping
r}).20 This
a thing
the
such
is, it is so only
to express
used
of opposites
. . .
language
different
facie
from
the
and
resulting
is 'no more X
(itself derived from flux)
is prima
in a way,
difficulty
than
epistemological
observed a few lines earlier, which was expressed by the idea of
difficulty Theodorus
things
the phrase
Thus,
from the compresence
not-X'
in a way. Whatever
not-X
not.
equally
from
under'
our words
can
he
While
(vneêpx^rai).21
derive
the
latter difficulty from flux alone, Plato must qualify the flux specifically as involving
he
before
qualities
to have compresence
opposite
possible
all, and
Plato
considers
such
can
of
'no more
at
arrive
X
from
arising
in other dialogues.)
compresence
having
not-X'
suffer
from
from
very words,
a unity
of opposites
he
this compresence,
the difficulties
of flux.
so that we will
need
from
then
flux,
and
having
that such
discovers
'Thus'
a new
and
'not-thus'
if we
language
(It is, of course,
at
diachronic
change
any
to the results of the second sort:
Finally, Plato applies the first sort of difficulty
derived
not X'.
than
not
opposites
also
are
X
than
too,
to speak
at
'no more
pu?XXov expressions,
'slip out from under'
arrived
ov
our
at all.
It is this sort of merely flux-based difficulty, this tendency of things to slip out from
under our words (and not the failure of things to be X rather than not-X) that Plato
raises
also
in the Cratylus,
a dialogue
which
is, after
all,
concerned
primarily
with
naming. At the end of the dialogue, Socrates confronts Cratylus with the difficulties
that would
arise
if all
/cat
pe?vra>v?439C).
such as it is' because
the disastrous
result
things were
'always moving
The result
is what we should
it 'is always
in 440A6-D6:
slipping
away'
knowledge,
and
flowing'
(iovr
'the beautiful
v arr?vrojv
(?et v-nêpx^r
the beautiful,
ai).
Socrates
the good,
?et
is not
expect:
always
describes
etc., would
be
changing (ixeraninre?) into other things. But because Plato has not here raised the
compresence of opposites, the difficulty is expressed by saying that knowledge 'would
18
constant
Hdt. 4.120, dealing with the Scythians
flight from the Persians, employs vocabulary
are
similar to Plato's
verbs used of the Scythians'
of the Persians
handling
vTreCipxtrai:
vtt îovt
Cf. J. Hartog,
The Mirror
s, and vneCeXavvovTes.
(Berkeley,
of Herodotus
viretjdyeiv,
'The other company
of the Scythians
is also ordered to lure the Persians on and lead
1988), 41-2:
a day's march
them astray, always keeping
ahead of them. The verb used is vne?dyeiv,
which
is carried out surreptitiously
through its prefix indicates that this movement
19
R. Bolton,
Review
'Plato's distinction
between
and becoming',
Correctly,
being
of
29 (1975), 71 : 'Plato agrees that there is no absurdity
in supposing
that some object is
Metaphysics
no
an
its place. Equally,
arises from supposing
that
is
continuously
absurdity
changing
object
its color.'
continuously
changing
20
cf. P. DeLacy,
(ov pi?XXov and the antecedents
On this phrase,
of ancient
scepticism',
3 (1958), 59-71.
Phronesis
21
to
J.MacDowell,
Plato: Theaetetus,
Translated
with Notes
(Oxford,
1973), 180^, attempts
derive the 'no more X than not-X' difficulty
from flux alone.
very
764
SHORTER
on
pass
but
to
a different
into
not by
'no more
are
stuck,
than
knowledge
Another
than
form
that we
saying
these two sorts of epistemological
for
required
els ?XXo etSos
(pj^rairLirroi
knowledge'
at the outset,
with words
and concepts
yvojoeojs),
that refer
not-knowledge'.
difference between
time-dimension
NOTES
the
sort
flux-based
(the
is the
difficulty
out
'slipping
from
under'
problem), but not for the compresence of opposites. This factor is expressed, in both
the Cratylus and the Theaetetus, with words indicating time:
For if it ever (nore)
it is not changing.
stays the same,
(Cra.
it is clear
then
For as soon as (ajua) the person about to know
sort (aAAo /cat aAAo?ov).
and of a different
The
words
that
or inspection
to the next
over time.
succession
it approaches,
itwould
(Cra.
also
that Heraclitus
established
a different
become
thing,
439E8-440A1)
that flux
indicates
in the Cratylus
III. PLATO'S DIALECTICAL CONSTRUCTION
HERACLITEANISM
Having
), at least,
xpov
of the flux are aAAo and its compounds,
rather
than
uses
the case for compresence).
Plato
(as was
typically
to express
this sort of change,
and that /xera- prefix
has
to express
the sameness
of a subject
of aet
from one
denoting
opposites
and piera?dXXei
pierarrirrrei
a diachronic
use
The
force.
involves
r
(e/cetvo)
the result
express
negatives
occasion
that at that time
439E2-3)
has
a certain
of flux,
view
and
Theaetetus
OF
and
that Plato
second,
has a different view, there remains to show what Plato was doing by employing
Heraclitus' name for this quite different sort of problem.
In
the
Theaetetus
who
ophers
Heraclitus'
rr)v
Theodorus
179C-181B,
a flux
thesis.
These
advocate
rov
(ot
'HpaKXeirov
appear
179D4)
yE(f>eoov,
and
Socrates
thinkers,
or
179D8)
iraipoi,
as a comic
caricature.
In
discuss
certain
philos
comrades
of
'the
designated
'the men
at Ephesus'
the issue of
179D5-8,
(ot nepl
'moving
being' is depicted as a hot topic of the day, and they are themajor advocates of it:
SO: And a battle over it [sc. over the idea that Being
is always moving]
of no
has arisen?one
mean
size and involving not a few men. THEO:
It is far from being small, but around
Ionia it is
even growing
are
of Heraclitus
the comrades
(ot rov
huge. For
eralpoi)
'HpaKXeirov
a campaign
for this X?yos very forcefully.
conducting
ismeant by 'the comrades of Heraclitus'?
What
term
this
or
'Stoics'.
to
refers
men
These
in the
'Heracliteans'
are
the army
same way
of Heraclitus
It would be a mistake
to think that
that one might
refer to
within
the larger martial
not in the sense that Crito is the iraipos of Socrates (Crito 54D). What
are
an
army
Theodorus
madmen'.
or
say, but
are
which
that
says
There
tactics
employs
that
'you
could
is in them
'not
shoot
as
their
'full
of
strange
arrows
interrogated,
and
shoot
so much
'little
turns
Their
'strangely
name-changed').
in Herodotus
Persian
4.120:
army
both
and Heracliteans
Scythians
when
to men
who
appropriate
no more
a discussion
have
of
as the
enigmatic
least
bit of
phrases'
language'
(Kaiv
is like that
strategy
crusading
them
with
They
(prjpiariGKia
s
metaphor,
ismore,
are
repose'.
'Epicureans'
for
they
flux.
than
with
do not
utter
alviypiarojSrj)
puerajvopiaoiJieva,
of the Scythians
literally,
the
against
still for their attackers.
Instead,
they will not stand
answer
avoid
any close
engagement,
cryptically
arrows
at their opponents.
SHORTER
765
NOTES
It is not immaterial in this connection that Socrates and Theodorus have served as
Athenian hoplites, and that the Scythians' and Heracliteans' characteristic failure to
stand firm in conflict martial or dialectical is, for a hoplite, the mark of cowardice
(famously, Archilochus fr. 5West). Recall, too, that the opening of the dialogue saw
Theaetetus being transported home from Corinth, wounded and afflicted with
re
terms him KaX?s
Eucleides
dysentery.
avTov
heard
others
iyKojpiia^?vTOJv
irepl
Kal
and
dyad?s
tt)v
on
remarks
his
pidxrjv?'singing
how
praises
he
has
over
the
battle' (142B8). While thismodel of hoplite valour is by no means a pervasive theme
in the dialogue, it is a very real component of the Athenian outlook, and thus must
of Plato's
remarks
about Heracliteans.
shape our understanding
to play
the dialectical
The Heracliteans'
refusal
and their
game,
with
Socrates'
way of doing
style, are thus contrasted
unfavourably
preferred
oracular
Plato
philosophy.
is playing upon the apothegmatic quality of Heraclitus' own prose; upon his famed
obscurity of expression; and upon the flux doctrine. All this is plainly enough a
caricature
Socrates
at attributes
fun
poking
that his
suppose
own
of Heraclitus'
'followers'
wrote
books
sharing
that
perhaps
the
exasperating
suggests
this
writing;
there
is no
to
need
style.
dart-throwing
and
avoidance
of
stable conclusions is only for show; doubtless they have an esoteric doctrine which
they teach to their own pupils. But Theodorus remonstrates (180C) that it is not a
of masters
question
and
or of
pupils,
at all:
teaching
such men one does not become
the pupil of another, but
pupils, my good man? Among
to be inspired, and each
each of them happens
they sprout up of their own accord from wherever
that the other knows nothing.
From them, as I was saying earlier, you could never get
supposes
an explanation
or unwilling. We must ourselves
take hold of it
they be willing
(Aoyo?), whether
it just as we would a problem
and examine
(irpo?Xrjpia).
What
So
not
these
only
persons
The
are Theodorus'
are
declaration
problem'
purposes
explicitly
that
levelled
complaints
said not to constitute
the
is to be
question
serves to bracket the question
of
'we ourselves
the dialogue.
must
take
Since
we will
it up
and
nameless
against
a school.22
taken
over
for
Heracliteans,
examination
of the flux doctrine's authorship
never
examine
but
'like
a
for the
answer
from
the Ephesians,
get a fixed
a problem'
it as we would
(180C56).23
(There is backhanded humour in the words 'you could never get a X?yos from them'
since it is precisely Heraclitus' evangelistic aim to help other men recognize the
X?yos.) Taking over 'flux' as a 'problem' (Trpo?X-qpia)should be understood as the
opposite of treating it as a X?yos: Theodorus is steering Socrates away from his orig
inal intention to examine the words of the Heracliteans themselves.24 That will not
work, so the question of change is being taken in hand by Socrates and Theodorus as
their
own
project;
the X?yoi
of
previous
thinkers,
and
their
A?yos-doctrines,
are put
aside. Plato's usage inRepublic 530B6 affords a perfect parallel to our present passage:
22
M. Burnyeat,
The Theaetetus
1990), 47-8 and at n. 61 inclines to this
of Plato
(Indianapolis,
as well.
conclusion
23
en lOKone?od ai. D. Bostock,
Se Set napaXa?ovras
Plato's
avrovs
onep npo?Xr)pia
Theaetetus
'This means, presumably,
that Plato is not
(Oxford,
1988), 99, detects this implication:
as Heraclitus
to portray
the [sc. flux] doctrine
himself
held
it, but to be
claiming
exactly
claim.'
examining what seems to him to be itsmost fundamental
24
T
roi, a> <f>iXeOeoS
pe, p?XXov OKenr?ov Kal e? apx^s,
onep avrol vnoreivovrai?
as they themselves
reason why we ought to examine
All
the more
it from the beginning,
put it
forward'
(Tht.
179D9-E1).
766
NOTES
SHORTER
I said, we
shall
shall let the things
then,
Astronomy
Xpojp, voi), and we
as a
to treat flux
agreement
to particulars.
reference
without
Theodorus'
and
Socrates'
like geometry,
using
problems
pursue
(irpo?Xrjpiaoiv
in the sky go (r? S' iv r?? ovpavto
idoopiev).
involves
likewise
'problem'
the divorce
It strengthens
about principles
reasoning
and the flux
Heraclitus
between
true
Just as in the Republic
here considered.
doctrine
will put to one
so Socrates
and Theodorus
sensible
stars,
study
to
in the writings
of others.
instances
of the flux doctrine
agree
side any actual
They
no
from
'the ancient
inherited
but as one
treat it, not only as a Trpo?Xrjpia,
poets',25
shoe
it clear by demonstrating
who make
'later men
less than from
it, so that even
do not
to apply
understand
course,
Heraclitus'
meant
many
Of
to Heraclitus,
his
with
obscure
and
style
his
the
that
complaint
his
teaching.
name
in all of
in view
is still the primary
him
Plato
is using
that
But
is because
notwithstanding.
poets'
(180D3-4). This would be a very odd thing to say if
learn their wisdom'
makers may
it were
not
does
astronomy
'the ancient
this,
for
of
purposes
still
ivSo?a26 rather than because he is engaged in scrupulous history-of-philosophy,
less in any interpretation of Heraclitus' words. Aristotle defines ivSo?a as 'reputable
that
opinions',
TovTois
or
to
as he
right
as an
but
Kal
rrXeioTois
ivS?Cois?'to
to the most
or
rj tois
oo<j>o?s, Kal
all, or to the majority,
and
notable
not as a private definition
common
to describe
attempt
it. It applies,
knew
rj tois
Tr?oiv
yvcop?piois
or to most,
I take this description
school,
dialectic
seem
r? tois
pidXioTa
all of them,
(Topics 100b21-3).
Aristotle's
which
is, those
r? rr?oiv
the wise?to
also
therefore,
to Plato.
practice
To wit:
esteemed'
posited by Plato in order to serve as one half of a dialectical opposition with
total
of
thesis
and
notable
removes
consider
As
thesis
the flux
to Parmenides
ascribed
stability
esteemed'.
proof,
from
any
and Melissus,
two more
of
of the Eleatics:
handling
with Heraclitus,
association
Plato's
too-close
to
peculiar
in philosophical
thesis
the flux
is
the
'the most
just as he
lest anyone
rather than dialectic investigation of
take him to be doing history-of-philosophy
to
the idea of stability from the philos
so
distance
also
takes
Plato
pains
ivSo?a,
as
he names
ophers
ovv
pir)
ovt
Ta
we
XeiTTOjpieda. So
a
premise
require
notes,
'The
things
staked
are
out
which
implications
SO:
in the Theaetetus,
I seem
things
simply
Plato
avviojpiev,
seeks
in all ways.'27
changing
on
the extreme
position
The other dialogue
As
Socrates
says (184A1):
<f>o?ovpiai
et7re
ttX?ov
7toXv
Siavoovpievos
Heraclitean
that the Theaetetus'
be surprised
arguments
As D. Bostock
did not hold.
almost
Heraclitus
certainly
Parmenides
Of
its champions.
Xey?pieva
not
should
to extract
It
is Plato
t
can
only
the premise
be got from
not Heraclitus,
who
and
himself,
that
has
flux.
in which Heraclitus
Heraclitus
ti
is introduced
ismentioned
prominently
as a representative
to spy (Sokw KaBopav) Heraclitus
to myself
as old as the days of Cronus and Rhea, which
is the Cratylus.
of flux:
of wisdom,
ancient words
uttering
Homer
also says.
(Cra. 402A3-6)
25 Tht.
v
r v
r? S? npo?Xr] ?xa aAAo ri napei?rj(f>apev
180C7-D1:
per?
?pxai
nap? p?v
. . .
v rovs noXXovs
s iniKpvnrop?v
noir)oe
26 In Aristotelian
term for
is used as a technical
dialectic
Top. 100a), npo?Xrjpa
(e.g. Aristotle,
and total flux?') to be answered dialectically
a question
in constant
by jumping
(e.g. Are sensibles
deoe?s such as the
off from eVSoâ, 'generally accepted
views', which could include paradoxical
cf. H. Baltussen,
of Peripatetic
flux thesis in Plato. For a brief discussion
Heraclitean
dialectic,
in the De Sensibus
Dialectic
and Plato: Peripatetic
the Presocratics
(Leiden,
Against
Theophrastus
in Plato's day, it is not
of oral dialectic
is a literary representation
2000), 34-5. If the Theaetetus
to find some of the same terminology
being used.
surprising
27 Bostock
(n. 23), 101.
SHORTER
Again
767
NOTES
the flux thesis is older than Heraclitus,
and derives from the poets. There
a statement
probably
follows
of
the
in paraphrases,
thesis
not
verbatim
fragments,28
of Heraclitus:
'
stands
Heraclitus
that all things flow and nothing
says somewhere
(X?yei nov Hp?KXeiros)
still, and likening the things that are to the stream of a river he says that you could not step twice
into the same river.
(Cra. 402A8)
The
nov
word
mark
may
verba?as
ipsissima
as
the quotation
be expected
would
given
or as a reminiscence
inexact,
of
the vagueness
the
rather
than
introduction
(Sokco
Ka?op?v).29
the next occurence of the flux idea
A similarly hyperbolic tone permeates 411B-C,
in the Cratylus:
SO: And by the dog, I seem to myself
. . .
I just now noticed
mark?what
to be prophesying
(pavreveodai)
not
too far from
the
as a warning
serves
and
to the reader.
is ironical,
There
piavreveodai
a jocular
in the
wise men making
themselves
of spinning
description
dizzy. As
to these wise men
'No
the flux
thesis
ascribed
is radical
and extreme:
Theaetetus,
The
word
follows
single thing is stable or steadfast (pi?vipiov ovSe ?e?aiov), but everything is flowing
(pe?v) and moving (c?epeoOai), and full of every kind of motion and constant
coming-to-be (yev?oe s ?et).' This is fairly close to the thesis in Theaetetus 18IE that
in the Theaetetus
is always
In fine,
with
every kind of change'.
'everything
changing
nor any evidence
and Cratylus
there is neither
of Heraclitus'
that
any exegesis
words,
no
more
Plato
has in mind
that
he
than
Heracliteans
least,
any historical
(at
seriously
that Homer
thinks
a flux-doctrine).
teaches
Instead,
we
a radical
have
theory
no
with
apparent limits to the flux.
IV.THE LEGACY OF PLATO'S HERACLITUS
a rather
to Plato,
Thanks
we
when
writers:
read
a Heraclitean
is not
even
to
to hold
caricatured
the Platonic
to hold
version
of
came
'Heracliteanism'
and Aristotelian
commentators,
about
or
doctrines
the X?yos,
to call
fire
to later
down
we
find
that
to be
the element,
or
are mentioned
in
certainly
opposites?though
to be a
in all subsequent
philosophical
writings,
to believe
is pre-eminently
in total,
and especially
flux. With
Heraclitean
material,
f
the exception
who
in
is called
of a certain
Antisthenes
Diogenes
HpaKXeireios
in 9.6, the epithet
Laertius
and a Pausanias
is applied
to no
6.19,
'HpaKXeinorrjs
connection
person
consist
with
the
unity
Heraclitus.
in all of Greek
of
these
Rather,
literature
except
in his views about flux. This
Cratylus.
His
Heracliteanism
is specified by Aristotle
is always
inMetaph.
said
to
987a32,
28
So also Kirk (n. 2), 14 and Marcovich
(n. 2), 194.
29 This
to exegete Heraclitus
raises the question
of whether
Plato was even in a position
has been variously
Kirk
estimated, with the pessimistic
directly. The number of direct quotations
to fr. 22B82-3 DK (man considered
in relation to
that only the references
giving it as his opinion
vov
to 22B51 DK
289A,B;
ktX.) in
god and to ape) in the Hippias Maior
(8ia(f)ep?pi
oopi^?perai
the Sophist 242D, E and Symposium
187A; and to 22B6 DK
(the sun new every day) in Republic
to flux without
498A are Heraclitus'
words. Against
this is set the total of references
any
in the Cratylus
in the Phaedo
and Theaetetus;
90C, Philebus
43A, and
anchoring
quotation
this assessment
S. Mouraviev,
Heraclitea
2.A.1 (Sankt
Sophist 249B. Cf. Kirk (n. 2), 13-16. With
to flux, and 91-4 to all other
pages 68-90
agreement,
1999) is in apparent
Augustin,
devoting
and presenting
the same passages as Kirk.
doctrines,
768
NOTES
SHORTER
where he explains that Plato was familiar 'with Cratylus and the Heraclitean
doctrines that all sensible things are flowing and that there is no knowledge about
them'. Later, inMetaph.
1010al0-15, Aristotle relates how Cratylus went beyond
Heraclitus: 'He found fault with Heraclitus for saying that it is not possible to step
into the same river twice; for he thought [itwas possible to do it] not even once.' We
thus have
two mere
than
a literary
half
names
Laertius,
of
On
the most
depict
a topos
in oral
themselves
as
Plato.30
are doubtful.
historical Heracliteans
namely,
in Diogenes
creation
a Cratylus
and
such
slim
who
evidence,
more
is probably
about
speculations
It seems likely that the Cratylus and Theaetetus
common
manifestation
dialectic,
employed
in Plato's
of Heracliteanism
thinkers
by
themselves
who
had
day:
no
to it.
allegiance
Whether Cratylus himself attributed flux to sensibles only or to other things as
well, Aristotle's school probably contributed heavily to that interpretation with De
Caelo 298b, where 'all is being generated and is flowing, nothing having any stability
one
except
which
thing
single
said
to have
come
as
persists
the basis
of
all
these
and
transformations',
1078b 12-17, where idea-theorists (Pythagoreans and Plato) are
also with Metaphysics
to their
view
thus:
Those who hold the theory of ideas were led to it because
of the truth of
they were persuaded
the Heraclitean
that all sensible things are always in flux, so that if there is knowledge
arguments
and thought of anything,
there must be some other, abiding entities besides sensibles. For there is
no knowledge
of things that are in flux.
With this weight of Aristotelian opinion guiding the characterization of the flux
doctrine and of Cratylus, it is no surprise to find that the Aristotelian and Platonic
commentators
the
echo
r
HpaKXeireios
same
understandings.
They
of
speak
o
KparvXos
who holds that all things (or sometimes specifically sensibles) are in
of
?v Kivrjoei
'their own unstable
nature'
(?r?vTa
etvat) because
v
so that no thing
to the
is ever the same
'with respect
</>vo i),
same
rov
Kara
and
the
substance'
avr?
avr?v
r?
(Kara
xp?vov
or
When
the commentators
local,
say 'flux',
they mean
physical,
vrroKeipievov).31
sort which,
when
to an
alteration
of
the
taken
thwarts
extreme,
qualitative
of
process
change
iavr
(rfj ?orarrj
same
time
predication. This is not an understanding
and
Plato
of his words,
reading
in the Theaetetus
and
sympathetic
constructed
of Heraclitus
but
on
the
that is based on a thorough
caricature
to suit his
Cratylus
of Heraclitus
dialectical
which
purposes.
CONCLUSION
Plato's
Heraclitean
ologically
flux
upsetting.
is not Heraclitus'
Further,
Plato's
flux,
but
compresence
is far more
of opposites
radical
is also
and epistem
not Heraclitus'
unity of opposites. Why then did Plato select Heraclitus as his representative of
instability, and not some other philosopher? The association of the river-saying with
flux
appears
to have
been
a received
commonplace
by
the
time
of
Plato,
perhaps
30 I
'The problem of Cratylus',
AJPh 72 (1951), 225-3 and D. N. Sedley,
agree with G. S. Kirk,
Plato's Cratylus
is shown taking his ideas about flux from his
2003) that Cratylus
(Cambridge,
encounter with Socrates,
rather than bringing
them to that (historical?) meeting.
But contra, cf.
D. J.Allan,
'The problem of Cratylus',
AJPh 75 (1954), 271-87.
31
inMetaph.,
Cf. Alexander,
inMetaph.
49.21 Hayduck;
Asclepius,
(987a32), 49.21 Hayduck;
in Platonis
10 and 14, all reproduced
inMouraviev
Proclus,
Cratyl.
(n. 29), 2.A.I.
SHORTER
769
NOTES
through Hippias, as Jaap Mansfeld
suggests;32 perhaps through Cratylus, as
Marcovich hazards. The playful way in which Plato handles Heracliteanism, with
comic and hyperbolic imagery, suggests that his audience would have known and
altered
vented later philosophers
its harmonious
namely,
as a familiar
flux
Heraclitean
recognized
This
oral dialectic.33
from
the context
of contemporary
theory
seems
to have pre
of Heraclitus'
philosophy
version
from grasping Heraclitus'
unity
with
own intended point about flux:
stability.34
MATTHEW
Mars Hill Academy, Cincinnati, Ohio
COLVIN
[email protected]
doi:10.1017/S0009838807000705
32
that the sophist
building on an idea first put forth by Bruno Snell, suggests
Jaap Mansfeld,
a handbook
of philosophical
and poetical
commonplaces
arranged by theme,
Hippias
compiled
and Homer with the
such as 'water', and that this was Plato's source for the linking of Heraclitus
der
flux doctrine. Cf. B. Snell,
'Die Nachrichten
?ber die Lehren des Thaies und die Anfange
und Literaturgeschichte',
96 (1944),
Griechischen
170-82,
repr. in his
Philologus
PhilosophiePlato or
Gesammelte
(Hildesheim,
1966), 119-28 and J. Mansfeld,
Schriften
"Cratylus 402a-c:
1 (1981), 63-4.
in L. Rosetti
(ed.), Atti del Symposium Heracliteum
Hippias?',
33
or elsewhere, was familiar enough
to be fodder for
The flux thesis, whether
from Heraclitus
fr. 170 Kaibel
and Plutarch, De comm.
popular
comedy well before Plato's day. Cf. Epicharmus,
?o?. 44 (1083 A).
34
A
lone exception
is the use of the river by the Stoic Cleanthes
in his physiological
flux of the soul constitutes
flux
in which
it as intelligent. Cf. M. Colvin,
'Heraclitean
psychology,
28 (2005), 257-72
in Stoic psychology',
OSAPh
and A. A. Long,
'Soul and body in Stoicism',
27 (1982), 34-57, repr. in id., Stoic Studies
Phronesis
1996), 224-59.
(Cambridge,
THE ASTYNOMOI,
PRIVATE WILLS
STREET ACTIVITY
1 is an oration
Isaeus
on
the estate
of
a certain
AND
seems
who
Cleonymus,
to have
taken
under his wing his nephews (sister's sons) after their guardian Deinias had died.
Cleonymus apparently had feuded with Deinias and during that time wrote up a will
transferring
his
to others
property
whose
exact
if any,
kinship,
with
is
Cleonymus
unknown (4ff.). Cleonymus specifically ignored his nephews despite his own father's
wishes that Cleonymus' property devolve on them (5). Cleonymus had his will
deposited at the office of the astynomoi, explicitly named in 15 but referred collec
tively as irrl ttjv dpxrjv in other sections of the oration (3, 14, 18, 21, 22).l According
to the
one
sent
the office
21,
speaker who was
for someone
from
22).
The
magistrate
by testament.
on
opponents,
to confirm
of
wished
the nephews,
Cleonymus
to carry out
of the astynomoi
the other
terms
the
law a man
In Attic
wished?he
did
not
of
adoption
do
reveal
1W.
Wyse,
The Speeches
have
that
of
hand,
the will
who
had
claimed
(18). Cleonymus'
no male
heirs
(repr. edn. New
York,
the will
and
(3, 14, 15,
the
summoned
that Cleonymus
a close kinsman,
to adopt
for
a testator
frequently
adopted
of Isaeus
to annul
his wishes
was an adoption
bequest
he
could
adopt whomever
the cases
instance.
Although
kinsmen,
1979,),
especially
185.
through

Heraclitean Flux and Unity of Opposites in Plato`s

Transcription

Similar documents

EXPRESS SOLDER SALMIAC

Workshop 5

Faraday`s Law of Induction Motional emf Lenz`s Law

02. Plato (427

Engagement Drives Social Media Success for Plato`s Closet

Calendar Collection

von der Linden - 2016 - CT Workshop

Virtual Worlds Virtual Worlds