Heraclitus (56)

[Music] oh [Music] [Applause] [Music] all right thank you for showing up this evening into another chapter now this is going to be a talk on the wisdom of heraclitus now I'm using the word wisdom in the philosophical sense and that's going to create I hope a problem because normally it is not regarded true that heraclitus has any Concepts dealing with that Realm of the Divine intelligence called wisdom now if I can make this point then we have to see how is it that there's such a sharp difference between what most people regard as hertis and his thought and what we'll be doing tonight that is to say there is a primary problem in hermeneutics that is how to interpret things so let me start of course he was born during the 69th Olympiad that put somewh around 500 to 54 BC we only have fragments of his work that's all we have found in other authors writings and therefore they're scattered throughout ancient literature people bring them all together into a unity and then write commentaries on them I would like to make a point about what I think is what I call the one to three and sometimes it's 1:4 ratio that is in each of the subjects he's going to explore he says some things positive and they stand to the negative or to the sharp contrasts three to four so therefore as an example if he's talking about the fundamental nature of things he'll say three three or four things positive and he might say on top of that uh 15 to 18 negative things or contrasts now if you build up your view of what he's doing by the negatives you miss the fact that his whole style is epigrammatic right and it deals with opposites and sharp contrasts that's his style so we have to see why he's doing that and the fact that he's doing it and I have a couple of very good examples of this word which we'll get to in a moment all right so now look here given this we now have to take a look at this Curious Thing Called hermeneutics hermeneutics is a term right fancy word used to describe method of interpretation or approach to interpretation in the classic World there are basically three now the first is like with Aristotle there are some people believe you can understand Aristotle just by staying in AR stotle by Plato just staying into Plato that's one approach to understanding the text the second however is very heavily into the pl ancient platonic tradition and what it does it says no no no there's a whole tradition we can examine and since there are many very fine thinkers who are exploring these early thinkers and important thinkers what happens if we find a few really outstanding think who can throw light on the early thinkers as example if we want to read Plato we want to get into Plato and there are some difficulties in Plato what if we went through the tradition of platonic literature and got into procos well procos is are commentary on much of Plato especially the penties and other writings and then if we can master that and go back into read Plato then it should illuminate Plato to the degree that it does so that's the second method of her tical method of the Ancients now Pro pralus talks about the fact that he studied with sanus who was a great neoplatonist didn't Le much in writing if anything fragments but by working with him and understanding what he uh grasped about Plato he was able to put it into a structure and those are the works we have that's a different method um araris is one of the great Geniuses of the old days and he did an exploration of home Homer he's one of the great authors on Homer now what did that mean that meant therefore when people in the older days wanted to get into Homer and they read him and enjoyed him they might want to then check on ours darkus to find out what he says about particular issues and then go back into Homer to see whether that illuminates things that may be a little obscure or difficult chanis is another one who really has stated this method very clearly and he did a work on on Aristotle's dianaa or the soul uh and it's a very fine work panista and in the introduction pranis says and he's third Century he said you can understand the idea of the soul in Aristotle much more clearly if you read the writings of I amus and therefore what he did was to say let let me show you what ampcus did with Aristotle's theory of the soul and I will then add it and structure in such a way so that when you go back and read Aristotle it will become clear to you now the reason why I'm using Aristotle is because like on the idea of the active and the passive intellect they're only really only two paragraphs and they're they're they're difficult to read because the language is obscure or they're only notes and they weren't really worked out so therefore pran says well of course they were just notes for classroom work therefore read amus he'll put them together he'll show you the insights and how to read them and then Prana says and I'll put them in a formal structure therefore this is pretty much a statement of pry anas's view he says before you do a work an Insight must be attained into the truth of the reality itself whatever an author is talking about the soul of the wisdom or whatever it is and insight must be attained into the truth of the reality itself and it should must include one's own investigations and those investigations are to go thoroughly into the conception of those who have achieved The Summit in knowledge on that particular subject so that's what he did you see he reached an insight into the study of the Soul by reading icus that's one of the men who in the ancient world was said to have achieved the summit of knowledge and respect to this issue of the Soul so pranis read him mastered it and included his own investigations in respect to that and that's the basis of his work that's the second mode of hermeneutical interpretation and we did say they were three the third is what Pro pardon me what platinus and sanist Sayes they incorporate the work and use it as a vehicle for seeing themselves it's not a scholarly treatment it is opening up their own mind to this kind of exploration and they are then the primary investigators and then through their own achievements they then see things in a sharper way and therefore uh can be said to develop their own kind of hermeneutics based upon their own reflections of the text and their own inner experiences and they try to bring it together to throw light upon ancient authors whom are most important to them those are the three methods now now that we're looking at heraclitus you see the modern way of doing things is the moderns have a hermeneutical approach and primarily it's to go to Aristotle and find out what Aristotle thinks about heraclitus and then they represent that as the essence of heraclitus therefore we're going to test that later and you're going to be the testing you're going to do some testing I have statements of Aristotle all of them uh from his work on heraclitus and after we go through this talk you'll be given those sheets and you can just grade Aristotle because you will be then in a position to judge how well he understood heraclitis of the whole 124 you'll give him a grade so tonight you're grading Aristotle all right that's where're going so now everything I say comes out of a 124 fragments and Philip wheelright is the translator that I'm going to refer to so first this is what is most often referred to as the heraclitus's view of nature or the processes of nature fire and water are the big two images that are used to explore the processes of Nature and he has two images bow and arrow and the liar and he says hey look there are two forces pulling this way and pushing that way and that tension between the two is the very vehicle that brings about all that is in nature for all nature is nothing other conflict Strife opposites clashing together and that's normal and that's real and that's the nature of things so he says fire fire is the exchange of all things right for All Things become Fire and Fire out of fire come all things fire throws things up and out and it gathers things in so they're two forces you see two forces and then he has the way of understanding if you now take this now and the way in which we Ed the terms last week these are not literal right the elements are not literal they're principles that are represented by these terms therefore fire lives in the depth of Earth Earth is anything solid earth is anything solid so fire lives right in the depth of things that are burnable that's what it does fire lives in the depth of wood fire lives in and since anything could be consumed in a hot enough fire therefore fire lives in the death of earth oh H curiously enough air lives in the death of fire because out of the fire sweeps up air lofty as it is push is up into the heavens right and what happens with air why uh as notice we have an analogy as fire lives in the depth of Earth so air lives in the depth of fire as water lives in the depth of there and as Earth lives in the depth of water right so these are processes these are processes through which see these are pro these are stages these are all stages in the process of nature nature then goes through each transformative and in that transformative aspect he says I think I know what that is behind it all that's the principle of fire then of course he then takes this view with water is right and he say hey you know what the very flow of water everything flows nothing abides everything changes so he takes that view which is very interesting if you take the I take a a motion picture right of any process speed it up or slow it down you get a whole different view of the way in which the thing moves and grows so if we could see in one month the whole Evolution and destruction of the earth and our Heavens you would see something coming into being and passing out of being much like a great flow so he says everything flows nothing remains in itself everything gives way to everything nothing stays as it is is that very essence in the social condition is war war is just nothing other than the same process going on in nature goes on endlessly at Strife therefore everything comes to pass through the compulsion of strife Strife is natural and therefore in one day you can become a king and the next day you can become a slave everything transforms and he say as you consider it he said that's why you can't step in the same river even once the river changes you can't step in the same river it's changing the water changes everything changes so you can't even say you step in the same river once much less twice this is his view of nature what's at variance with itself is always with itself so he U I'm going to read a couple of quotes out of this section which uh I should have here yeah ah good good good good he's got one or two though I'm very fond of that uh for some reason I'm not trusting my memory right now the fairest universe is but a heap of rubbish piled up at random every Beast is driven to pasture by a blow sun is new every day the sun is the breath of a man's foot it's all relative it's all through stages there is an exchange of all things for fire and a fire for all things as they are uh wees for gold and of gold for Wares each exchange for the other this entire universe which is the same for all has not been made by any God or man it always has been is and will be it's like an ever living fire kindling Itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures see there's still order behind this behind this there's still measures see behind this is measures there's still measures behind that and therefore we have to go behind the process of nature to take a look at the order and that's where we're going they're going to be levels of orders that are going to be disclosed and that's the way we're doing it so therefore he now takes the next level right Next Level he says look here have to realize that nature loves to hide L loves side you have to kind of understand it to see what's going on for all of it is one all is one major philosoph major philosophical term for look here for out of the all the many particular comes Oneness and out of Oneness come the many particulars becoming unfolds as opposites you see and through all the transformations of fire goes into all the different different Transformations we can see that we have to then discover what's behind this process of Oneness and that's where we're now going to go now what is behind it all order High degree of order which he calls the logos the logos the principle of logos is eternally valid eternally true and it's according to the logos that all things come to pass now most men are asleep to it they think they have an intelligence a private intelligence of their own they don't realize that it's the logos that is the primary intelligence and although these people are intimately connected with it the logos uh men keep setting themselves against it they are asleep hey you know what they seem to be without experience of it yet they're in the midst of it now he contrasts that with his own way and he Reveals His method what you have to grasp about nature and the principle behind it is the first thing is that you have to look for what is common to all it's my method is easy to see that it's very simple first he says I have searched myself primary I've searched myself and my method is that I study each thing according to its nature and then I want to specify how it behaves right I want to see how it behaves I want to study it I want to specify its nature I want to see what it does because of that he says of the things I love sight is principle hearing but learning is what I most love so in order to spe specify how things behave you have to use sight the senses but it is on a higher level because you're trying to reach the truth about nature so therefore he has this lovely statement which I now would like to read to you although the logos is eternally valid yet men are unable to understand it not only before hearing it but even after they've heard it for the first time that is to say although all things come to pass in accordance with his logos men seem to be quite without any experience of it at least if they're judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am setting forth now my own method is distinguish each thing according to its nature and specify how it behaves other men on the contrary are as as neglectful of what they do when awake as they are when asleep therefore we should be Guided by what is common to all yet although the logos is common to all most men live as if each of them had a private intelligence of his own therefore men who love wisdom should become acquainted with a great many particulars well then how does this idea of the logos fit within his scheme it's certainly a principle that that's behind and therefore with which all things uh Accord therefore he goes to another level he goes to another level watch this [Applause] one you see there's a hidden Harmony that's the problem there's a hidden Harmony and our job is we have to know the intelligence behind that we have to understand that intelligence by which all things are steered through all things look at he things as they proceed through each other things that proceed through each other whatever it may be whatever it may be as things then proceed through each other the thing that is steering that that's intelligence there's an intelligence within nature if it is then how do you grasp it he says you know thing you have to grasp go for what's common right try to discover what's common to all right and then you have to then now he has an ethical side to himself right has a very curious and interesting ethics he says what you have to do is have to learn to speak with rational awareness and thereby hold strongly to that which is shared in common what is it that is shared in common he says you know what that is that's law law in nature and law among men now it's very interesting when his view of law both in nature and among men he says men should hold on to their law in a State and defend it as much as they would fight for their own City therefore you must protect it you must preserve it because that includes and contains the rationality what men have brought together is a rationality that becomes fixed in law your job therefore is to protect it and follow it in nature the law is the logos among men it's thinking and rationality therefore the law when you're considering the law either in nature or among men you're really listening to what he calls you're listening to the Council of one that's what you're saying law whether it's in nature as Longos whether it's in the rationality found among good laws among mankind when you're obeying it you're just obeying one that's what you're doing the counsil of one is what you're obeying and that's what your mind should be fixed upon he because the rational the the soul uh the the soul of man is the greatest mystery you have to realize for heraclitus the soul is so interesting and yet different from uh what most people regard it as that we must go there because we want to see how the one right the hidden Harmony logos come together into the IDE idea of the Soul right ready next page he look here only the Divine Nature has real understanding there is no understanding in man only the Divine Nature has it Human Nature has no real understanding only the Divine does therefore her Fus really has a theory of participation because that's what it means it's a theory of participation there is only intelligence in what encompasses man see what's around him right and that's the theory of participation he said the difficulty is that men don't understand it and they block it and they block it and he has a great expression to understand why men don't see this he says what is divine escapes men's notice and it's only because of one thing because of their incredulity pardon we were talking yes yes it's because of their basic beliefs their incredulity they don't believe it that's that's why they can't see you have to know what you see before you can see it I mean you can't see it you can't recognize before you know it but you have to know it before you recognize it then you can see it right so this is the way in which he brings you into that development therefore going back down to the idea of man man's character is his true Guardian Divinity and therefore a wise man or the soul of a wise man is nothing other than a beam of light from the divine right that's what he calls it a beam of light right there not sense so you got to struggle for those now look here what is this divine nature that has real understanding with which man can participate the divine nature now we're going into the Theology of heraclitus and that's where we have to go all right here we go Zeus that's what he calls it he says wisdom is one and unique wisdom stands apart from everything else it's transcendental it's willing yet unwilling to be called by the name of Zeus therefore for heraclitus the highest principle the one is nothing other than Zeus that's willing yet unwilling to be called by the name of Zeus well that's the case then what do we have here what we have here therefore now I want to go back to remember what we said before the idea of the soul the wise Soul then is a beam of light all right but his idea of the soul is it has no limits it has no limits try as you may he says you can never discover the limits of the Soul or the profound depths of it by any path he says take all the paths you want you can never discover the limits of the Soul therefore it is unlimited his view of the soul is unlimited and among the wise therefore can be talked about as a beam of light and therefore it has astonishing depth that's his view of the Soul so let's see whether we can pull things together now he has a hidden Harmony which is a synthesis of all the processes in nature which are opposites captured in the idea of strife he finds behind it a principle the logos that creates a higher Unity it allows a theory of part participation therefore there's intelligence and understanding that stands apart from man within which man May participate and behind that is a wisdom which is one and we have a right to call it in terms of heraclitis Zeus now every one of these points I've gotten out of heraclius let me read you uh a couple of them the hidden Harmony is better than the obvious people do not understand how that which is at variance with itself agrees with itself there's a Harmony in the bending back as in the cases of the bow and the liar listening not to me but to the logos it is wise to acknowledge that all things are one wisdom is one and unique it is unwilling and yet willing to be called by the name of Zeus wisdom is one to know the intelligence by which all things are steered through all things now I could now multiply the other side of this where he makes fun of people who who do not accept his View and that multiplies his work by three or four and I'll just read a couple of those because they're some very fun um men are deceived in their knowledge of things that are manifest even as Homer was who was the wisest of all the Greeks for he was even deceived by boys killing lice when they said to him what we have seen and grasped these We Leave Behind whereas what we have not seen and grasp these we carry away Homer deserves to be thrown out of the contests and flogged hessia distinguishes good days and evil days not knowing that every day is like every other Human Nature has no real understanding only the Divine Nature has it man is not rational there is intelligence only in what encompasses [Music] him uh now the negative side people they pray to images much as if they were to talk to houses for they do not know what gods and heroes are night Walkers magicians banites revelers participants in the Mysteries what are regarded as Mysteries among men or Unholy rituals so he has many of these um although it's better to hide our ignorance this is hard to do when we relax over one a foolish man is a flutter at every word fools although they hear are like the death to them the adage applies that when present they're really absent bigotry sacred disease inflicts all men so he has all of these epig epigrammatic statements and they multiply the work but they make fun of The Other Side by three and four now if you are convinced by my quotes and my references to our good friend heraclitis I would now like to do something else I would now like to look at Aristotle and you are now going to be given these are the set of terms and ideas from Aristotle pardoning herac clus pass one R there I one here come on they don't want to come apart hey there okay now most people understanding of Homer paron me of there I go again heraclitus is drawn from our friend Aristotle now they are these are seven of the statements drawn from heraclitus if this is all we have of heraclitus then you would come to certain conclusions but if these exist as they do in Aristotle and these 20 124 statements is really what exists of heraclitus and by the way he was said to have had one of the great libraries in the ancient days then we can then continue the point we were making last week and it's going to go on as long as we're in this series that each time you have to give a test and we have to grade Aristotle's understanding of his contemporary philosophers and I think you will see as we go through this again and again and again that he's going to get very poor grades therefore when people in our culture go to Aristotle as a source for understanding the presocratic we're in trouble I think but maybe he'll get a high grade tonight let's try it take a minute out read them together all things are in motion as heraclitus says hippasus a metapontum and heraclitus of ephesius declare that fire is the first principle heraclitus says that all things at some time become fire some such as and pedicles of acacus and heraclitus of Ephesus say that there is an alternation in the destructive process which goes on now and this way now and that continuing Without End it is logically impossible to suppose that the same thing is and is not as something heraclitus said supporters of the theory of fors are led to it by means of heraclitus's argument concerning truth in which he holds that whatever is perceived by the senses is in a state of flux accepting that much of his argument these philosophers go on to argue that if there is to be science or knowledge of anything there must be other entities in nature besides those perceived by the senses in as much as there can be no science of what is in a state of flux whereas some think of the like as a friend and the opposite as an enemy others think of opposites and friends and heraclitus blames the poet who wrote would that Strife met must pardon me would that Strife might perish among Gods and Men arguing that there could be no Harmony without both low and high notes and no living things without the pair of opposites male and female to punctuate heraclitus is difficult because it is often unclear whether a given word should go with what follows or with what precedes it when for instance since the beginning of his treaties he says although this logos exists always men are unaware of it it's unclear whether always belongs with exists or with are aware pardon me are unaware now going back as you consider this Aristotle is your student he just uh studied heraclitus here tonight and this is his paper on heraclitus arist on herac Pardon this is Aristotle on her this is all Aristotle on heraclitus these are all the quotes from Aristotle and heraclitus he is one of your students and you just gave him a talk just as I have here on the board and he just gave you this paper as a summary of His good work and you are now going to grade it right okay take a minute out give him a grade are you saying all things are in motion as hertis says is not hertis but is these are all quotes from about dealing with presumably quoted from or references to [Music] heraclitus still missing all things are in motion is not a quote from pardon it doesn't say as heraclitus says yeah that's all we have okay that's what Aristotle but I don't see well I don't mind that but how about this point is this clear this statement can be found in Aristotle I can give you the reference to it and it deals with heraclitus heraclitus came here tonight and he made these notes about the writings of heraclitus and I'm asking you to grade them to see how well he did in the study of heraclitus on the first point it seems like it's okay since heraclitus says everything flows nothing abides sure yes so so he get a couple of points fine first one fine second one is no good right the logos everything comes from the logos um it it the the point that you're raising is this one so what is meant by first principle if the first principle is to account for nature then he sees all things flowing out of into flowing into and Gathering out of that certainly some idea that he has about what takes place in nature but it's not the principle that explains fire so you might say that is the first principle fire in nature but it doesn't account for the Dynamics found in nature the Dynamics of fire that must go behind it as it were so if pardon real first principle well then there's a question what do you want to call that thing above it behind it right he could say the first princi iple in nature that would make it clearer wouldn't it or in a process of nature right as the next statement says heraclitus says that all things that sometime become fire all things can be consumed by fire return and come out of fire we would say the same thing through the bursting of the sun and the uh all of the planets and nothing other than spinning Fireballs out of the Sun at some point and then it will likely to be caved in at some future time and therefore everything is generated out of fire and we'll return to it there is an alteration change back and forth into destructive processes which go on now in this way now that continuing Without End that's that's there isn't it still in nature isn't it he's still in nature isn't it right still in the processes of nature it is logically impossible to suppose that the same thing is and is not as something heraclitus said well okay okay now there are three other statements there long paragraph all right deals with the idea of the theory of forms we're led to it by means of heraclitus's argument concerning truth he holds that whatever is perceived by the senses in the state of flux and if you say that if there's any kind of knowledge there must be something behind it that can account for the flux that's true but does he tell us what forms there are behind it is that the platonic theory of forms well just a theory of forms this is before Plato that's 30 years before Socrates was born so while that's true does he link it to it does he link it to the theory of forms all right third all right whereas some think of like as a friend the opposite as an enemy other think the opposite his friends right then he quotes heraclitis blames the poet who wrote right so he's just quoting from a poet at that point is he not heraclitis thinks that this view came from this poet and you can uh take the last sentence now to puncture heric cidus is difficult that's a question even whether there's a difficulty with it but okay now um what percentage would you say of the ideas that we were covering tonight does heraclius cover 20% he doesn't deal with the most important one seems like louder he doesn't deal with the most important one not seems like he doesn't do with it the idea that everything is one no or that there's a beam of light so the theology he doesn't have doesn't have the logos does have doesn't have the logos doesn't have the rational doesn't have the rational doesn't have intelligence doesn't have understanding doesn't have the idea of participation in understanding no let's go back right does he have any any of this no and if these are important and if the student failed to include them on the paper what would you do how about only the Divine Nature has real understanding is that an important idea yeah Human Nature has no real understanding only the Divine does and therefore there's by participation that we gain that only since only the Divine Nature has he doesn't understand it because he doesn't know how to punctuate that sentence that's right that's very important by the way if he knew how to F if he understood it he probably fate yeah although if I knew how to understand it prob but he still stays at the level of nature all the way through he never never goes above well let's let's take that English problem with a grammatical problem and take a look at it in a minute all right all right uh does he also have a view of mankind is he continually opposing one view against the many does he bring that up in his uh statements no then he doesn't have that tension between the two that plays a major role in his thinking so therefore that's missing as well huh how about man's character is his Guardian deity no ahuh and man's soul is like a beam of light H the hidden Harmony no see you have to know the intelligence by which all things are steered through all things right thinking is common to all how about the idea of law is that significant idea of of law in nature behind all nature is the logos that same principle which is common to all can be found in man and law significant Fight for Your Law if for your own city right um I don't know anything about this stuff but I've heard of the like chaos theory just heard of it is this at all similar to that that like behind all these things that seem inharmonious that there's a Harmony that's what he's saying isn't it but I mean that that with the chaos theory or whatever I especially whatever yes if you're talking about Chaos Theory chaos theory is a way of talking about that behind chaos there's a higher degree of order that's right and that's very similar or is there is there differences in it or well there might be differences to it but this is so sparse we only have 124 quotes and uh they're actually only 30 quotes and only uh six deal with the idea of hidden Harmony it'd be difficult to set up there for a direct comparison between Chaos Theory people or they mathematicians or this is no no what oh no I meant we're talking about 500 BC but I'm saying Thea chaos theories that was that sprung out of mathematics yeah math and theoretical physics and physics yeah yeah yeah especially at the University of Santa Cruz right all right okay how about this did mcgrade for this or didn't he miss this [Applause] page so where does he then Focus what does he focus on there you go oh not even not even in nature is not the one right doesn't see the Oneness not even Oneness he drops out all Oneness and the Transformations he does have this is where he is is there you go from 20 to 10% processes how could this guy be Plato's disciple I don't get it Aristotle well no no no no see that's one of the words you have to learn to use um he may have been sitting in the back sleeping no no see he went to he went to the academy he was a member of the academy and he claimed he never did understand that great lecture on the good in the one you wrote that yes yeah too bad poor that's what he that's what he said that's what he said yes yeah yeah so now look here now let's go back now look I'm not sure about uh shall we collect the pages and find out how we did or do you think we can all agree without collecting the papers what kind of a grade he received or that's what I I'd say see me after class therefore therefore we're going back to the real problem which is this one say how should we teach philosophy now I think see if if you use Aristotle to understand Aristotle and if you're now taking Aristotle's view of heraclitus and using that as a basis for understanding then you have a de andf understanding of heraclitis but the biggest problem biggest problem is the theory we mentioned last time and let me restate it there is an idea that there are people called presocratic not only that they came before Socrates but the ideas they had were not yet developed on the level of Socrates and I would like to call to your attention to the fact that would you not agree you saw many of the ideas basic to platonic thought already in heraclitis participation of one the idea of intelligence and wisdom being one Zeus is the highest concept the theory of participation that intelligence is divine and man only gains it by participating whole theory of participation and therefore I don't see any basis for arguing that there is this development going on rather it looks like it's sprung full not complete not that Plato and other thinkers didn't add and amplify it the difficulty is that all we have is the fragments and the fragments themselves indicate a very deep richness where they're where there is a kinship between the socratic platonic tradition and these thinkers that preceded them especially herac clus now we have these three methods remember right moderns go for authorities and unfortunately a good number of them frame their thought of heraclitus from Aristotle we would argue Would we not from this that the second method of hermeneutical method from procus aristarchus and panus is the one that should really be used which is if you're going to study these people get as much as you can from them but then look for people who have achieved the summit of their knowledge of that thinker and then if you have then go back to the original work with the insights you've attained and then test them that's the second now that's what panus did when he was studying the idea of the soul and he went to aamus and he did that great work on the soul that's what he did that's the method he used but I amus and platinus did not use this method they and that's the third method right the third method and the third method is most much interesting isn't it platinus went out and he shaped his own Vision by the tools of platonic thought and then on the basis of what he did understand and grasp through his uh mystical encounters with mind and mind itself he then did the work called the anid I amus did the same thing he had his own Vision he was a student of the platonic tradition but he de he he delved into the same thing on an experiential realm as well as understanding so he brought his own experience plus his understanding and on the basis of that he created the work he did and that therefore uh which which is really interesting he then went back and looked at Aristotle and said I can make sense out of Aristotle better than he could himself because I can take the fragments there and I can rework them into a much more consistent and coherent Vision but he did that because he then reached the level of experience and understanding and crafted a better Aristotle perhaps than Aristotle could have done who knows uh whether that's accurate but you can certainly say he added a great depth to it same thing with platinus now pralus did not proclus did not it doesn't come out of his own experience it comes out of a great deal out of sanas and therefore what we want to do in the modern world in our world is go for three train people for vision bring them back into the wisdom tradition let them go through these works let them take advantage of one two develop three and gain and continue this wisdom tradition and that's the goal of I I believe true philosophy didn't have experience and understanding I didn't say he didn't have understanding okay I said that his he continuously says that he drawing on people who came before him especially his teacher sanus in the end of uh at the end of the Parmenides in What's called the K section he does talk about the need for individual experience but he doesn't bring that to us and um though he does acknowledge the need for it and if you want to take a good look at it I would recommend you looking at it it's called the K section at the end of procol's commentary on Plato's par minites there's there is a possibility of understanding this material without experience I don't hear without what without experience understand that's what wait a minute yeah yes of course is there a way of understanding this material that experience yes that's writing commentaries on what other people have said and thought that's what we do in the colleges how can that's what they do in the colleges no one says what you must do is sharpen your intellect to the point where you can use it as a vehicle for seeing so you can see things similar to what Plato platinus and procus saw these people saw and then take their take that Vision you've had or that uh experience of the nature of reality and craft it back into this tradition so you can then Express what these former thinkers thought in a much more interesting and varied way perhaps enrich it no we don't do that in college or university ass how could you understand PL and not have Insight that's easy just go to any University and they'll bore you to death yeah but that's not understand understanding though is it yes it is it's a kind of understanding it's being able to say what well and in in many cases you don't read Plato in many universities the instructor will tell you what Plato says so it's one step removed from him but in the classes where you can do it you're not encouraged to look for the method of Plato to explore it yourself and then come back on the basis of some enriched experience write a commentary on it that's not normally done and then matter of fact I don't know any school where it would be acceptable unless it was a rhetoric class or English composition we train Scholars we don't train people for vision yeah I can understand that's the purpose of the University but I'm understanding you're saying Pro does not didn't have the experience or in my misunder understanding if you read proclus you do not hear him read him you don't see in his comments that this comes from his own Vision when he does talk about people and vision he talks about it from other people especially his teachers in the end of as I said at the end of the conclusion of the penes look at section K where he does talk about the need for experience and he outlines what he thinks is a method he does not say that he exploited on that level and went back into the text and found this and that because of that experience you might you might assume it but platinus does platinus says that's what he did right said of the Soul yeah the and the uh yes and The Descent of the soul and many other places and Beauty on the one he adds to it immeasurably out of his own experience I guess I puzzle this even he is quoting and he is making commentaries using other um Expressions propol that is that there isn't degree or some kind level of experience goes along with that that how can we conclude from reading a section on prus that whatever it is he's writing in any particular point that interests you whether That's the basis of reflection and understanding on the text and on his teachers texts rather than on his own experience contrarywise when can you see that he's really concluding on the basis of his own private uh experience and not driving the basis of those statements from teachers that would and study you have to take a look look I'm not saying he doesn't in doesn't outline the need for experience am I I'm saying it is not obvious to me it might be obvious to someone else uh to find sections in there where he's volunteering that this material came out of my own experience I see so he's not volunteering that question is whether that occurred I've always assume that that level of misunderstanding is combined yeah well look I'm not suggesting you give up your assumption yeah I'm just saying next time you go through it keep that in mind and see whether you can make this kind of a distinction see especially if you're thinking about the procol's commentary on the Parmenides a good part of his commentary on Parmenides is line by line by line by line and the question is what is he bringing to that under what is he bringing to each one of those lines to open it up and to make a comment on it does that come out of his own experience does it come out of sericus does it come out of the earlier thinkers and there's a whole set of earlier thinkers he uses because part of the game of scholarship is to be able to identify earlier thinkers and to master those so you can as it were stand at the top of that and make statements about something that came earlier and that's one of the goals it's a legit go it's the second method when um propolus writes about the Arc of light is that based upon uh commentary on on the section in Plato or is it or is he saying this is how things are well you see now you're in you moved from the Parmenides to the Theology of Plato oh is it yeah I thought that was in the com well that's where the whole a great whole section is on the procession of light all right okay again we're back with the same question all right watch how can we conclude that some section is the result of the author's personal experience rather than the result of working with previous thinkers and their writings to make the points he made now to truly conclude we would have he would have to say it I would suppose but it seems obvious to me that he has that kind of understanding when I read his work I mean in the introductory invocations to the Theology of Plato and uh the commentary on Plato's parities he uh exhorts that the gods enkindle a light of Truth inside of him inside of his soul right true no doubt but I mean he doesn't say that it's happened but he does ask them to do that that's right and that's why I made a separation between that kind of thinker and platinus who very clearly does make that statement now as far as we're concerned all right if we could find some examples of proclus his work that does come out of his experience what we'd simply do is say part of procs is here and part of proclisis in the third section we put his name down here I'm perfectly all right there's nothing uh in far as what I'm doing that would exclude that but in so far as we know he does quote previous thinkers and shapes his vision from those thinkers since that's what he tells us to that degree he belongs here and I'm certainly not excluding if you if you do find some rich quotes that suggest that put them in both yeah I would agree beginning yeah okay well find them and and U we'll uh break them into two right we'll break them into two all right [Applause] now how 24 fragments we pulled out about a third of them right we structured them in the way in which we did in order to justify the claim that there is a wisdom of heraclitis that fits in is consistent with what what we later call the platonic tradition therefore I would rather call it not the platonic tradition but the helenic tradition now the difficulty with that let me make it very clear and for that I'll even get a different color there may be some helenic who don't do not participate in that and like Aristotle and Aristotle maybe one since many of the thinkers do we can say very clearly that there is a helenic tradition in which we will clearly put our friend heraclitus as we did with our other thinkers and especially now when we go into edles next time he'll fit in the helenic tradition we're going to do the same thing make another test as we proceed because if we can shake loose our tie to this gentleman Aristotle and using him as a basis for understanding then it opens up the fact that Plato was not unique Socrates was not unique there was something going on in the tradition and that takes participation in and experience of and it's still possible to get into it because that's something that is there thank you maybe was not the tradition Callan tradition thank you thank you guys do it again just sure yeah yeah if there is a wisdom tradition in heraclitus right we have to find it m because we have been The Heirs of an Aristotelian tradition the difficulty with that is that there are only 124 fragments the ratio is 1 to three sometimes 1 to four on these issues and if you only focus on the negative side then you have a distorted view of heraclitis he does however deal both in his style and his content with opposites and when he does make these differences they're in sharp contrast we then talked about three methods of the Herman unical method right one two three making clear that when we're dealing with cius depending upon which one you use you're going to come to it with a different understanding I started with the processes in nature because nearly all of Aristotle is in this realm and I wanted to show that he does explore this realm even though there are some things he misses right but nonetheless he does represent a good part of it right the question then is does he remain faithful to the other levels of paricus such as that there's something behind nature and that great expression nature loves to hide and all is one and if so there must be something behind all of this Strife that can bring about a Oneness and what is that right because we can see that the idea of fire is a transformation through the elements right so therefore we must have to try to look for that rationality that moves from the many and drive into Oneness that's the logos the logos is what he calls eternally valid and everything flows from it and everything comes come to pass in accordance with the logos he contrast his own view with that of the many calls the many asleep and he says they believe they have a private intelligence of their own and even though they're intimately connected with this logos they have no they act as if they had no experience of it his way of reflecting on things is such that says that my own method I practiced on myself I searched myself and I have two ways of proceeding with my method one is that I try to study the nature of each thing and specify how it behaves if he's going to specify how he behaves surely then he must rely upon the senses the eyes especially which he must treasure above all but he also says apart from eyes and ears he Treasures most often learning as Central and highest of it all right and therefore he seeks to reach for this truth behind things well if you do have this logos what does that depend upon does it stop there does he go behind it he say good Heavens there's a hidden Harmony you have to discover it right and if you do then you'll discover the intelligence behind which the logos functions and by which all things are stirred through all things remember this beautiful diagram I drew I was impressed by it myself then on the other side as it goes logos which is common to all and all nature he also has the idea of a Oneness in man common to all man kind and that's law he say law especially rational law law is something so important it's a one and therefore you must guard and protect your law as if you were to protecting your city for if you listen to the law rational law that's like listening to the Council of one so he ties in the idea of one to law and to Nature and the hidden Harmony behind it and that's an intelligence what's the nature of that intelligence he says well I'll tell you what man doesn't have it he can participate in it because Divine the Divine Nature has real intelligence and man has none therefore the only way he can gain It Is by participating in it which he expresses in a very interesting way he says there is an intelligence only in what encompasses mankind right and that's a kind of participation is in right and he say the problem is what is the what is the difficulty we have he only one thing the divine nature escapes men's notice because of their own basic incredulity they don't believe they don't their beliefs that are blocking them from Vision therefore if you are straightforward in your your being and you lack this uh incredulity then you know what you'll have character what is that well that's to have a a Divine Guardian for a man's character is his true divine uh Guardian therefore if that's the case then the wise man is nothing other than a soul that is nothing other than a beam of Light which reflects the nature of that higher reality then we said look here how is the divine nature and real understanding connected with and with what's beyond that oh he a Zeus so there is the Theology of heraclius though he puts a caution you know Zeus is willing yet unwilling to the one is willing yet will unwilling to be called by the name of Zeus wisdom can you can call it Zeus it's willing and is unwilling to be called by the name of Zeus unique is the one unique right and wisdom stands apart from all else it's Transcendent it's above and beyond all else and therefore it stands as a Divine element a theology above heraclitus therefore we mention further that the idea of soul is not each man has a particular soul but the idea of Soul has no boundaries it's Limitless therefore it really is like a world soul of of what later was developed in the timeus with Plato that's astonishing depth you're never be able to tap the depth of the Soul then I brought these ideas together and said now that let's look at these ideas and see whether we can talk about them and their presence in heraclitus and then I opened up passed out those pages with seven statements drawn from heraclitus and I gave it to you to to decide on what kind of a student he was if this can be said to represent heraclitus since everything I put here on the board comes directly out of heraclius and I think most people gave him a low grade hoping that he'd come go back and do some more work yeah thank you Aristotle does not appear to understand what the dialectic is was the dialectic something that it was discussed in Aristotle time oh it had to be well then how can you say that things cannot be the same thing is and is not how can you you fail to understand that dialectically if if for no other way yeah well there was a problem with Aristotle isn't it yeah we're going to get more of it as we go on okay right and the Big M is where did he get his reputation being a philosopher if most of us when we read his stuff on each of these thinkers get such a low grade thank you [Music] oh [Music]

Channel: PostNothingness

Views: 10,452

Keywords: Philosophy, Heraclitus (Author)

Id: FJQ_ctiLcSc

Length: 70min 42sec (4242 seconds)

Published: Sat Jan 24 2015