Remembering Heraclitus

by Richard G. Geldard

Fragments of Heraclitus: "To be wise is one thing:
to know the thought that directs all things through all things." "We should not act like the children of our parents." This bright, deep, meditative jewel-like study brings Heraclitus to life in a new way, and shows him to be one of the principal sources of Western mystical thinking. From Geldard's point of view, the study of Heraclitus is not just an academic matter but, on the contrary, presents us with very real existential and phenomenological challenges.



The book includes new translations of all the essential fragments. Geldard, through his exploration of Heraclitus, shows us, "The more that human beings openly and humbly seek higher knowledge, the more they develop the power to perceive it, until finally they penetrate to the hidden universal order. The result of this penetration is knowledge of the Logos, that 'which directs all things through all things.' The acquisition of this knowledge is not an event; it is a stance in the world. It is Being in its fullness."

Genres: Philosophy, Biography

177 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 1, 2000

Reviews

[Giannis Fylachtakis · Rating 4 out of 5]

...ήθος ανθρώπω δαίμων...

[Mike · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book on Heraclitus has yet to be written; perhaps it never will and never should be. Both the Heidegger book on Heraclitus I read earlier and now this pitiful book fall far short of expectations. The former at least demonstrates scholarship; it just isn't very interesting and seems like a half-hearted effort by Heidegger and company. But this book's claim to scholarship is difficult to take seriously. I respect Geldard's attempt to translate the fragments of Heraclitus, but I found it perplexing that he only translated 57 of them, when many other translations range between 100 and 130. Geldard's rationale was that many of the other fragments were "dubious" or of questionable origin, though he offered no criteria for what would make a particular fragment dubious. More beguiling, though, was the fact that Geldard nonetheless used some of the so-called "dubious" fragments to articulate his interpretation of Heraclitus. Either a fragment is dubious and so one should not base one's interpretation on such dubiety (a house of cards, anyone?), or it is not dubious and thus acceptable for consideration. Furthermore, if Geldard were truly "re-membering Heraclitus," as he states several times, would it not be fair to say that such dubious fragments are nonetheless attributable to Heraclitus? Would Heraclitus himself not think so? After all, if "the way up and the way down are one and the same (fragment 7)" or "good and bad are the same (fragment 20)," then why not "the true and the false are one and the same" or "the authentic and the dubious are one and the same"? Geldard's flimsy rationale for his avoidance of translating all of the extant fragments suggests that he either did not fully envelop Heraclitus' thought or he is simply lazy in his own thinking. Or, in Heraclitus' words, Geldard is still asleep. (THE SLEEPER MUST AWAKEN! -Kyle Machlachan in David Lynch's version of Dune.)

The highlight of the book for me was Geldard's consideration of the obscurity of the fragments. Such obscurity, in Geldard's view, is not for the sake of mystification or obfuscation, but rather a way of warding off mindless appropriation and the grubby hands of the simple-minded. All well and good and I'll give Geldard that. And yet I can't help but think Geldard himself succumbs to the tendency to appropriate Heraclitus to no good end. In what is the worst chapters of the book, "Nomoi," Geldard actually suggests that Heraclitus was "a libertarian in the sense of his demand that he be free from the restraints of government in his explorations and his expression of their results." If that is not a gross appropriation, then I don't know what is. (Geldard later characterizes Heraclitus as "living off the grid.") What makes the chapter so weak is that it uses very few of the fragments to back up such claims and thus is far too speculative. Geldard, a dramatic literature and classics professor, should know that if you are going to make such claims, you better have the text to back you up. (Oh, and is Heraclitus a "libertarian"? The question is nonsensical! It's like asking if Heraclitus is a quantum physicist...actually, Geldard almost says that!)

Further souring matters is that Geldard attempts to foist a "theory of consciousness" onto Heraclitus. Had Geldard read the Heidegger seminar on Heraclitus, as he claims he did (or just read any Heidegger), he would know the "dubiety" of such an attempt. To try to turn the Pre-Socratics into "theorists" is tantamount to discarding and obviating their thought. It is a way of putting on a mask that looks like the thinker, but is merely the appropriator's disguised visage. Instead of letting the thinker's thoughts dwell, and thus dwelling with them, Geldard wants to "make something" of Heraclitus. But by trying to "expand" Heraclitus into a theorist, Geldard only ends up being reductive. (Ah: to expand and to reduce are one and the same....) And this idea of of being reductive brings me to a final gripe.

Geldard does not seem to be a very good reader. In the "Telos" chapter, Geldard chastises (as he does in several places) Aristotle for being "reductive" with respect to Heraclitus. He then quotes the following passage of Aristotle as evidence of such "reduction":

"We therefore must not recoil with childish aversion from the examination of the humbler animals. Every realm of nature is marvelous: and as Heraclitus, when the strangers who came to visit him found him warming himself at the furnace in the kitchen and hesitated to go in, reported to have bidden them not to be afraid to enter, as even in that kitchen divinities were present, so we should venture on the study of every kind of animal without distaste; for each and all will reveal to us something natural and something beautiful."

Can someone please tell me how the above is reductive with respect to Heraclitus? Is Aristotle diminishing the thought of Heraclitus in the above? Is he being dismissive of Heraclitus? I'm sorry, if anything, it seems to me that Aristotle is being laudatory of Heraclitus—he's saying we should be like Heraclitus in seeing the divinities as present everywhere, even in the animals we study! If Geldard really wants to see what "reductive" looks like, he should turn to page 148 of his own book, where he lists in the most monotonous and tone-deaf manner the so-called "essential" words of Heraclitus: "...follow the universal...agree that all things are one...one and the same...out of all things...a unity...all things are beautiful and good and just [sounds like Aristotle above, eh?]...an apparent connection...expect the unexpected...." This pseudo-mystical poetizing goes on for about seven more lines and it's difficult not to read it in a hushed and smarmy tone, as if one were wearing a turtleneck and sitting by a fire made by a fake log. In short, it does everything that Geldard's book purports not to do: it turns Heraclitus back into an obfuscating mystic. That is definitely one way of "remembering" Heraclitus, but I don't think it's what Geldard intended.

[Λευτέρης Πετρής · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Η φύση του κόσμου είναι η ροή και στην ουσία και στην πράξη, η αλλαγή είναι ο κανόνας στις λειτουργίες του και στην ίδια του την ύπαρξη. «Τα πάντα ρει και ουδέν μένει: Τα πάντα κινούνται και τίποτα δεν μένει αμετακίνητο.»"

[Elliott · Rating 3 out of 5]

Unnecessarily compares heraclitus to taoism and buddhism and kinda pushes for this image that in the past a universal philosophy of the way existed across all societies.

[gkrispos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Αρκετά δυσνόητο βιβλίο για κάποιον όχι τόσο εξοικειωμένο με δύσκολες φιλοσοφικές έννοιες

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps Heraclitus may not be counted as the crème de la crème of the Axial Age thinkers – unfortunately, the extant fragments are too short, and the competition is tough, including the likes of Buddha and Confucius – nonetheless, his significant contribution to the humanity and the latter-day thinkers cannot be understated. One can read his fragments purely out of historical interest, but the author suggests that there is still relevance in his ideas per se, in the light of the apparent limitation that the reductionist and materialistic approach is facing in our metaphysical quest to comprehend reality. I thought the book also does a good job of whetting one’s appetite for further readings on Heraclitus by referencing the works by Heidegger and Voegelin, among others, within the main text. The only downside that I found in the book (hence the 4 stars) was the author’s attempt on several occasions to insinuate direct correspondence between Heraclitus’s ideas and modern physics, such as quantum mechanics, which I thought was a little too much of a stretch. However, this did not diminish my overall enjoyment of reading this book.

[Stephen Simpson · Rating 1 out of 5]

With so little source material (or contemporaneous/near-contemporaneous works referencing it), any attempt to investigate and explain Heraclitus is going to be extremely difficult. By necessity there is going to be a lot of projection and guesswork - not unlike how paleontologists will try to construct a sense of what an entire animal looked like from a few bones.

In this case, however, it seems that Geldard uses the ambiguity and lack of evidence to concoct a fanciful view of Heraclitus. Moreover, the author's choice of what passages to translate/include and what to leave out under the claim of being "dubious" seems very self-serving when examining other translations of the ignored passages and the extent to which they would disprove/deconstruct the author's arguments.

[David]

Heraclitus was one of the first greeks to question religious myths as an explanation for the natural world. Intellectual inquiry was a critical shift from the age old religious explanation for the nature of our world. A whole new way of looking at nature began with Heraclitus. he is the one who said you can't step into the same river twice.

[Richard Zhang · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good way to start understanding one of the obscurest Greek philosophers

[Esra Bestel · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is an excellent book. Reading it is like meditating.