My dissertation advances a solution to what I have called the problem of opposites in Heraclitus. The problem is this: Heraclitus often juxtaposes pairs of opposites, but the opposites he cites seem to be of many different kinds. How are we to explain this feature of the fragments? The default method of solution for interpreters has been to find a single thesis under which to subsume all the divergent examples of opposites. Some such theses are as follows: opposites are identical (Aristotle, Barnes), opposites are essentially connected (Kirk), opposites are transformationally equivalent (Graham), identical things can have opposite significances in different situations (Osborne). The main problem all these solutions face is that each is only able to make sense of some of the examples of opposition in Heraclitus, while ignoring or downplaying the significance of others. In order to solve this problem, I offer an interpretation on which Heraclitus was advancing multiple opposites theses, each of which contains interesting, philosophical content. The theses are as follows: The Transformation Thesis: the world contains opposing stuffs which transform into one another in such a way that they are transformationally equivalent, and therefore unified. The Dependence Thesis: objects are ontologically dependent for their existence (i.e. that they exist) and their identity (i.e. their ‘nature’ or φύσις) on opposing, yet essential properties which are necessarily inherent in them. The Value Thesis: it is possible for one and the same object to have opposing values (i.e. to be both objectively good and objectively bad). But why would Heraclitus promote multiple opposites theses? On my interpretation Heraclitus was responding to his Ionian predecessors who treated opposites as explanatory principles. Heraclitus seems to be saying that opposites are not explanatory principles since opposites themselves need to be explained. Hence the opposites are explananda, for Heraclitus, and the three theses are his explanantia. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / In this dissertation I offer a new interpretation of an ancient Greek philosopher named Heraclitus who stands at the beginning of the timeline of Western philosophy (around 500BC). It has often been thought that Heraclitus had something interesting to say about opposites (e.g. hot and cold, up and down). Most scholars think that Heraclitus intended to say that opposites are connected; that is, hot is connected to cold since we cannot think of hot without its opposite, cold. I argue in this dissertation that this interpretation and other, alternative interpretations, fail to make good sense of what Heraclitus said about opposites. Rather, I argue that Heraclitus was treating opposites (e.g. hot and cold, up and down) as philosophical problems that need to be explained in order to be solved.

Thesis (M.A.)--Miami University, Dept. of Spanish and Portuguese, 2007. / Title from first page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 54-57).

In mid-later Heidegger’s thought, polemos, an idea he borrows from Heraclitus’ Fragment 53, prevails in his works as that which creates the possibility of a fundamentally metaphysical decision of to-be-or-not-to-be. This decision clearly corresponds to the primal conflict between the “world” and the “earth” (the concealment and the unconcealment of Being) in a “rift-design” that he depicts in “The Origin of the Work of Art.” Based on a textual analysis of “The Origin” and related writings, which follows a phenomenological examination of the guiding questions in Heidegger’s progression from the study of Dasein to the study of being as such, I provide an exegesis that clarifies how, in Heidegger’s conception of art, polemos preserved by thinghood is entangled with other elements in his entire metaphysical inquiry. I show that polemos is a re-enchanting path in the light of which Heidegger ontologically uncovers the predetermined ethical connection between the human and the sacred, having as its medium the thing and as its end freedom, with the potential of bringing salvific power to a destitute age characterized by positivistic machination. Moreover, by interpreting Heidegger’s concept of beauty as phainesthai engaged in and with aletheia conditioned by polemos, I illustrate Heidegger’s reconfiguration of the history of Western metaphysics in order to illuminate its repetitive moments through which he overcomes it.

<p>What are the basic thoughts formulated in the Heraclitean fragments? A cosmology, a philosophy of nature, the idea that all can be reduced to a single substance? There is always a risk that Heraclitus is fitted into a thought pattern he doesn’t belong to, if we – from our present horizon – focus on continuity in an attempt to frame his thinking as part of an overall progress, running from the so-called pre-Socratics to Aristotle, in the history of philosophy. If we picture the dawn of Western civilization as an early development of scientific thinking, built on a gradual and continuous growth of knowledge, we will easily go astray as we try to discover the Greek origins of philosophy. Assuming, for example, that the readings of Heraclitus as a natural philosopher have come to a dead end, can we approach the fragments from a different angle?</p><p>The aim of this paper is not to give a systematized reading of all the remaining fragments of Heraclitus, but neither to necessarily contradict the various interpretations that emphasise how these shattered remains reflect a coherent philosophy. The focal point is the role of the sun in the fragments, but every chapter presents different perspectives, thematically possible to connect to (Diels-Kranz) Fragm 94: “The sun will not transgress his measures. If he does, The Furies, ministers of Justice (<em>Dikê</em>), will find him out.” (transl. C.H. Kahn)  This is the centre of the text, the hub that thematically will intertwine the Heraclitean sun with philosophical questions of measure, necessity, law, violence and destiny.</p><p>It is argued that a tragic structure is discernable in Fragm 94, a structure distinguished and displayed as three oscillating layers: myth, tragedy and philosophy. The archaeological approach shows remains of an archaic (Homeric) heritage, a mythological framework crucial for the expression of a tragic experience. The mytopoetical background of the fragment indicates a series of tragic markers – <em>helios</em>, <em>metra</em>, <em>furies</em> etc. – a layer revealing possible resemblances to early Greek tragedy. The third layer shows how this experience, from a philosophical perspective, in the first phase of philosophy, before the consolidation of philosophical concepts, is staged as the tragic harmony we find in Heraclitus Fragm 94.</p>

What are the basic thoughts formulated in the Heraclitean fragments? A cosmology, a philosophy of nature, the idea that all can be reduced to a single substance? There is always a risk that Heraclitus is fitted into a thought pattern he doesn’t belong to, if we – from our present horizon – focus on continuity in an attempt to frame his thinking as part of an overall progress, running from the so-called pre-Socratics to Aristotle, in the history of philosophy. If we picture the dawn of Western civilization as an early development of scientific thinking, built on a gradual and continuous growth of knowledge, we will easily go astray as we try to discover the Greek origins of philosophy. Assuming, for example, that the readings of Heraclitus as a natural philosopher have come to a dead end, can we approach the fragments from a different angle? The aim of this paper is not to give a systematized reading of all the remaining fragments of Heraclitus, but neither to necessarily contradict the various interpretations that emphasise how these shattered remains reflect a coherent philosophy. The focal point is the role of the sun in the fragments, but every chapter presents different perspectives, thematically possible to connect to (Diels-Kranz) Fragm 94: “The sun will not transgress his measures. If he does, The Furies, ministers of Justice (Dikê), will find him out.” (transl. C.H. Kahn)  This is the centre of the text, the hub that thematically will intertwine the Heraclitean sun with philosophical questions of measure, necessity, law, violence and destiny. It is argued that a tragic structure is discernable in Fragm 94, a structure distinguished and displayed as three oscillating layers: myth, tragedy and philosophy. The archaeological approach shows remains of an archaic (Homeric) heritage, a mythological framework crucial for the expression of a tragic experience. The mytopoetical background of the fragment indicates a series of tragic markers – helios, metra, furies etc. – a layer revealing possible resemblances to early Greek tragedy. The third layer shows how this experience, from a philosophical perspective, in the first phase of philosophy, before the consolidation of philosophical concepts, is staged as the tragic harmony we find in Heraclitus Fragm 94.

The philosopher Heraclitus has been renowned for a great amount of time. Despite that fact the remaining fragments of his work have just recently been assembled to the composed form they have today. Among these fragments there are a couple of terms that stands out amongst others; one of them is the term logos. The main focus of this thesis is devoted to the mystery and usage of the term logos, which comes into a great display in fragment number 50. The ambition of the thesis is to evaluate and compare three interpreters’ readings of Heraclitus while having a close focus on his usage of the word logos in fragment 50. One of these interpreters, Martin Heidegger, may have the most radical reading of Heraclitus’ logos among the three. Because of his philosophical standpoint he interprets Heraclitus in a way which has never been done before. The other two do not have Heidegger’s phenomenological perspective, by which Heidegger broadens our understanding of Heraclitus fragments, which isn’t as the thesis will show unproblematic. The other two interpreters G.S. Kirk and Charles H. Kahn both do a thorough reading and translation of all the fragments, whereas Heidegger is more selective in his reading of the fragments. Heidegger doesn’t have the same intention in his interpretation as Kirk or Kahn; therefore may he be said to be more selective in his reading of Heraclitus. While Kirk and Kahn depict a more naturalistic ethic tendency in Heraclitus, Heidegger illustrates an ontological tendency which speaks about being and its’ constitution and expression as such. At the end of the thesis there is an analytic part which compares and investigates the possible difficulties in comparing the three readings. The thesis acknowledges the possibility of impossibility in ever understanding the extent of Heraclitus thoughts around logos; the three interpreters hopefully show the scope of understanding Heraclitus’ thoughts around this term.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:12:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 MyrnaSB_DISSERT.pdf: 422171 bytes, checksum: 59ab33c30382bb4356e37a931e5392ef (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-10-06 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior / In the early 1870s, the German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, professor of philology in Basel, researches the ancient Greek philosophers. These studies result in texts as The Preplatonic Philosophers, also known as Lessons on Pre-platonic Philosophers, and Philosophy in Greek tragic age. Using both texts as sources, this dissertation aims elucidating the Nietzsche's interpretation about Heraclitus, in other words, comprehend how Nietzsche recognizes in Heraclitus a philosopher with an aesthetic vision of the world, a contemplative and cheerful view of the world, the becoming, defined by the incessant change, as a child's play that builds and destroy sand castles on the shore. This spectacle, as Nietzsche believed, would be unveiled first by Heraclitus and must be contemplated eternally / No in?cio dos anos de 1870, o fil?sofo alem?o Friedrich Nietzsche, professor de filologia em Basileia, realiza pesquisas sobre os antigos fil?sofos gregos. Estes estudos resultaram na produ??o de textos como Os fil?sofos pr?-plat?nicos, tamb?m conhecido como as Li??es, e A filosofia na ?poca tr?gica dos gregos. Usando como fonte principal estes dois textos, esta disserta??o tem como objetivo elucidar a interpreta??o desenvolvida por Nietzsche sobre o fil?sofo Her?clito, ou seja, compreender o que faz Nietzsche reconhecer em Her?cito um fil?sofo que possui uma vis?o est?tica do mundo, uma vis?o contemplativa e alegre do mundo, do devir, marcado pelo eterno construir e destruir, tal como um jogo de crian?a que constr?i e destr?i castelos de areia ? beira mar. Este ? o espet?culo que, segundo Nietzsche, teria sido descortinado primeiramente por Her?clito e que deve ser contemplado eternamente

No description available.

No description available.

La thèse centrale de cette recherche consiste à étudier la façon dont les Histoires d'Hérodote, en s'érigeant comme symbole de la pensée présocratique, révèlent une conception politique de la connaissance où les différents modes de la pensée archaïque peuvent trouver une espèce d'architexte qui fournit une méthode particulière de lecture et d'analyse. La manière dont l'historien organise, critique et donne la priorité à l'information met en évidence une conception politique de la connaissance, parce qu'il est toujours dans une position de médiation, il intervient et agit comme arbitre et juge des discours. Cette lutte ou bataille discursive est en définitive un symbole des forces politiques inhérentes à la pensée archaïque. Une des hypothèses centrales ayant guidé cette recherche est la proposition selon laquelle une analogie peut être établie entre le rôle du peuple par rapport au type de gouvernement de sa pólis et le rôle de l'auditoire ou le destinataire d'un récit. Ainsi, l'analyse des textes « présocratiques » peut être réalisée dans le but de pouvoir y tracer une politique du discours déterminée. Le travail est divisé en trois chapitres. Les deux premiers visent à légitimer la proposition qui est développée dans le dernier et qui constitue la thèse à proprement parler. Pour ériger Hérodote en symbole des présocratiques (chapitre 3), il est nécessaire de définir sa position interstitielle tant en amont (Homère, chapitre 1) qu'en aval (Platon et Aristote, chapitre 2), car les présocratiques sont également des interstices entre les corpus homérique et platonicien-aristotélicien. / The central thesis of this research is to examine how the Histories of Herodotus, acting as a symbol of Presocratic thought, display a political conception of kwowledge in which the various archaic modes of thought may find a sort of architext that offers a peculiar reading and analysis method. The Histories bring into stage the clash of discourses, the confrontation between them, representing the battle for discursive legitimation. The way the historian organizes, criticizes and sets a hierarchy for the information reveals a political conception of knowledge, because he invariably places himself as a mediator interceding and acting as an arbitrator and judge of discourses. This struggle or discursive battle is definitely a symbol of the political forces that are immanent to the archaic thought. A fundamental hypothesis guiding this research is that an analogy can be drawn between the role played by the people of a city as a function of their form of government and the role of the auditorium or addressee of a discourse. As such, the analysis of the Presocratic texts may be performed under the perspective that it is possible to trace in them a defined politics of discourse. This research comprises three chapters. To raise Herodotus into a Presocratic symbol (Chapter 3), it is necessary to define his interstitial stance with respect to the past (Homer = chapter 1) and the future (Plato- Aristotle = chapter 2). Several terms have been studied and through their forms of articulation in oppositions, associations or mere concomitances, an attempt has been made to determine how they work.