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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/23957 |
| Date | January 2019 |
| Creators | Neels, Richard |
| Contributors | Johnstone, Mark, Hitchcock, David, Jones, Howard, Philosophy |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0025 seconds