Paradox is Fate: The Role of Self-Reflection in Heraclitean Philosophy

Paradox is Fate: The Role of Self-Reflection in Heraclitean Philosophy

Elektra Jordan, Texas State University 2023

I. Introduction: The Popularity of Paradox

Despite his enduring legacy as a philosopher who produced obscure and enigmatic aphorisms, Heraclitus largely influenced the development of Western philosophy throughout antiquity and into modernity. From detailing the metaphysics of fire and water to reflecting upon the role of paradox as an underlying principle of human life, Heraclitus established a radical new form of philosophical thought. His work both expanded upon and differed from earlier Ionian thought which focused heavily on natural philosophy. Instead of restricting his discussions exclusively to the natural world, Heraclitus allowed his philosophy to evolve beyond that. His philosophy was confusing yet enlightening, and his ideas were difficult and controversial yet trailblazing nonetheless. By breaking away from the philosophical precedent of his time, Heraclitus was able to consider how the complexities of the human inner world shared similarities with the structure of the outside world that surrounds it. Heraclitus’s notoriously convoluted ideas have consequently inspired generations of scholars to take to the project of dissecting his writings to debate the true meanings contained therein. The continuous scholarly commentary about Heraclitus has secured his status among the influential bunch of pre-Socratic philosophers, yet the limited pieces that remain of his writing and the wide variance among translations of his work have led to a range of different understandings which has further complicated the academic literature on him. Moreover, much of Heraclitus’s popularity also stems from the fact that some of the biggest names in Western philosophy have provided their own interpretations of Heraclitus and his thoughts. From ancient commentary by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Marcus Aurelius to more recent thinkers such as G.W.F. Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Martin Heidegger, philosophers throughout the ages have returned to Heraclitus time and again in an attempt to interpret, re-interpret, and build upon his thought. It is the deeply ingrained complexity in his ideas that has made Heraclitus such a compelling thinker, but it is the ambiguity and flexibility inherent in those ideas that has inspired subsequent philosophers to return to Heraclitus, interpret him in a variety of new ways, and endeavor to resolve the mystery that remains in his fragments.

Beyond purely focusing on the philosophical ideas contained within his work, some scholars have instead focused their efforts on analyzing the various stylistic elements present in Heraclitus’s writing. Evaluating the unique writing style, the use of certain phrases or words, and the placement and arrangement of the fragments of writing has offered a different approach to interpreting Heraclitus’s work. The insights resulting from these inquiries could potentially serve as a new route for gaining a deeper understanding of his writing. Scholars such as Georg Misch, Charles Kahn, and Hermann Diels have specifically taken an interest in the unique presence of subjectivity and prose in the fragments that remain of Heraclitus’s work. Although both the speculation and scholarship surrounding his many contributions as a pre-Socratic philosopher is bountiful, it appears that the role of self-reflection as Heraclitus’s unique philosophical tool has been largely overlooked. This paper aims to analyze the importance of self-reflection in Heraclitean thought by asserting that subjective reflection serves as the basis for the paradoxical realizations that underpin his infamous metaphysical outlook of constant flux. Moreover, this analysis suggests that Heraclitus’s subjective reflections as a process-philosopher [1] may have helped inspire later philosophical movements ranging from Stoicism to the European Existentialist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, both of which similarly utilized contemplation of the self as a route to understanding the surrounding world. As Heraclitus pointed out the paradoxical elements that comprise us and the world, he also held that a person’s character can become their fate. Accordingly, Heraclitus’s character and reputation became associated with his confusing and contradictory philosophy, yet the controversial but relatable theme of his work ultimately earned him notoriety. His conscious attempt to produce obscure writings as a way to highlight the complexities of life paradoxically created a compelling and relevant philosophical stance that continues to inspire scholarly debate today. By defining his philosophy with the paradoxes he noticed in himself and in the universe, his character and reputation subsequently became paradoxical within themselves. At once he is a dense, complex, and obscure thinker, yet the confusion that surrounds his work inspires fervent academic debate which effectively maintains his relevance and makes his work more compelling. Irony abounds in the reputation and popularity that he continues to enjoy today despite his efforts to remain confusing and obscure. If his assertion is correct and character can indeed determine fate, then it seems evident that Heraclitus’s paradoxical character and philosophical work ultimately led to his ironic and paradoxical fate [2].

II. A Brief Background on Heraclitus

Little is known of the man who caused such a stir in Western thought. Heraclitus hailed from Ephesus and lived from approximately 540 to 480 BCE [3]. Although Ephesus lies about thirty miles north of Miletus, the legendary home of other pre-Socratic philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, there is no record that Heraclitus made their acquaintance or was directly taught by them [4]. Heraclitus’s philosophical flourishing is thought to have taken place sometime around 500 BCE which is approximately when he produced the book of his philosophy that is comprised of prose written in a particularly enigmatic style [5]. Sadly, the complete original text of his book is lost and thus we rely upon the quotations and paraphrases of his work that are featured in (and likely somewhat obscured by) later texts and doxographies from authors such as Theophrastus, Diogenes Laertius, and Cleanthes, all of whom contributed to establishing Heraclitus as a literary classic by the fourth century BCE [6]. Drawing on these sources, scholars have identified around 130 surviving fragmentary sentences that remain of the book [7]. The fragments do not easily connect or relate to one another, and consequently there is significant debate about whether the book had a coherent and continuous exposition or if the fragments were instead intended to be something akin to a collection of proverbs [8]. The oracular language used in the fragments is epigrammatic and baffling. For instance, take this assortment of fragments that show the enigmatic and disjointed nature of his writing:

“Death is all things we see awake; all we see asleep is sleep,”

“War is father of all and king of all,”

“The same… living and dead, and the waking and the sleeping, and young and old,”

“The way up and down are one and the same,”

and lastly, “Lifetime is a child at play, moving pieces in a game. Kingship belongs to the child" [9].

Based on the remnants of his book, it appears that Heraclitus also took up a discussion of nature and the physical elements (such as his focus on the element of fire) which aligns his thought more with the Milesian focus on physical elements than to the Pythagoreans who underscored the role of numbers in explaining nature [10]. Yet he differed in one crucial point from the Milesians: instead of focusing solely on the natural world, Heraclitus revolutionized philosophical thought by studying nature as well as the self. Milesians contented themselves with searching for the element that comprised the universe from some particular moment of creation, whereas Heraclitus held that the universe had always existed [11]. The Milesians were consumed with uncovering the principles of the world outside of themselves rather than looking for the one within [12]. Thus, Heraclitus did not search for a universal origin, and he instead turned his investigation inward to explore the elements that governed nature and man [13].

In antiquity, Heraclitus’s philosophical ideas were criticized – perhaps because they were misunderstood – by several notable figures. There is some suggestion that Euripides once asked Socrates his thoughts about the writings of Heraclitus, to which he supposedly quipped back that the “part I understand is excellent, and so too is, I dare say, the part I do not understand; but it needs a Delian diver to get to the bottom of it" [14]. Aristotle similarly noted the complexity in Heraclitus’s syntax but regarded this ambiguity as a weakness rather than as the key to understanding his philosophical thoughts [15]. There is an intimate connection between the form and content of his writing: nature and man are both a riddle, so Heraclitus crafted his own riddles to convey and explain this realization [16]. However, it appears that the layers of complexities in Heraclitus’s work were not appreciated as an artful and deliberate mixture of style and content which aimed to highlight a philosophical revelation about ambiguity itself. Instead, his writings were dismissed because of their paradoxical nature.

Adding to the confusion was Cratylus’s interpretation of (or arguably an extremist distortion of) Heraclitus’s writings which Plato used as an easy target to levy his attacks against Heraclitean philosophy [17]. For example, Cratylus took one of Heraclitus’s main ideas – the principle that the underlying properties of nature depend on motion and change, also known as πάντα ῥεῖ, the concept that everything is in flux – and immensely distorted it. Cratylus purported that everything in nature suffers from severe, constant flux and that no one could say anything true about anything because everything is continuously and rapidly changing [18]. Plato’s dialogue that is titled Cratylus features a section where Socrates criticizes those who hold this problematic viewpoint. Socrates says that those who follow Heraclitus’s ideas make themselves “dizzy from constantly going round and round” by imagining that the “world is going round and round and moving in all directions” and that this misconstrued idea actually “arises out of their own internal condition” that they then “suppose to be a reality of nature,” essentially suggesting that they have a “bad case of flux in the head" [19]. Plato continues on the attack in his Theaetetus, where he says “there is no discussing” the principles of Heraclitus, that you will be “barbed with some newly forged metaphor” and that you “might as well talk to a maniac” because they are in “perpetual motion” and use “little oracular aphorisms” which means you will “never get anywhere with any of them" [20]. Although his original meaning was obscured, it remains evident that Heraclitus’s focus on the state of constant flux was ultimately an influence upon the later development of dualism in Platonic metaphysics. If sensible things are continuously forming and then passing away as Heraclitus proposes, then how can we have certain knowledge of such objects that are constantly in that state of flux? Plato thus held that there must be some other permanent entities that exist apart from those which are sensible [21]. Despite utilizing Cratylus’s exaggeration of Heraclitus to misinterpret and attack his ideas, Plato nonetheless seems to have utilized them to create his own philosophical concepts. Moreover, both Cratylus and Plato appear to have disingenuously taken half of Heraclitus’s masterful “double-edged” philosophical prose and merely dismissed the other half [22]. Heraclitus’s intentional effort to be obscure and paradoxical consequently led to his philosophy being misappropriated by Plato, which in turn started a tradition of misunderstanding and over-simplifying his complex writing and thoughtful ideas [23].

III. Structure, Reflection, and Syntactical Ambiguity: A Review of the Literature

The misinterpretation of Heraclitus has continued into the modern age. A more recent 20th-century compendium by Diels arranges the remaining parts of Heraclitus’s book in alphabetical order instead of attempting to reconstruct any sort of sequence to the fragments, which may suggest that Diels viewed Heraclitus’s work as lacking formal literary structure, according to Kahn [24]. Diels specifically identified the aphoristic style of the fragments and suggested that they may have originally formed some sort of philosophical notebook or journal which altogether lacked unity and form (similar to the poetic and aphoristic style found in Nietzsche’s Zarathustra) [25]. On the contrary, Kahn suggests that Heraclitus’s book was artistically ordered in a way that was as important to its meaning as any lyric poem of the same period and that his writing style is perhaps best understood by studying the style of his contemporaries such as Pindar and Aeschylus [26].

The recent scholarship by Kahn suggests that Heraclitus’s fragments should be appreciated by placing greater emphasis on the artistic and stylistic elements of his prose. In his aptly titled work The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, Kahn suggests that the diversity of artistic techniques used by Heraclitus suggests that he is “not merely a philosopher but a poet” who “chose to speak in tones of prophecy" [27]. By recognizing his usage of word play, irony, imagery, and “syntactical ambiguity,” Kahn asserts that Heraclitus is methodically making use of the aphoristic style and “enigmatic tones of the Delphic oracle" [28]. Although Aristotle perceived that this ambiguity was a weakness, Heraclitus may have purposely utilized this technique to enhance his words with a rich verbal complexity akin to poetry [29]. Kahn also identifies two traits that run throughout Heraclitus’s writing: the first is a particular linguistic density that allows Heraclitus to pack multiple meanings into the same word or phrase, and the second is the resonance Heraclitus achieves when he is able to use one expression to evoke another [30]. Admittedly, these traits can be difficult to delineate through the translational variances whereas they are more noticeable in the Greek that Heraclitus wrote in. The following example displays a fragment containing these traits and shows how the translation alters them:

Μόροι γάρ μέζονες, μέζονας μοίρας λαγχάνουσι.

“Deaths that are greater greater portions gain" [31].

The Greek version features the alliteration of the four m-words in a row, the unique chiasmus pattern, and the ability to link two dissimilar concepts (death and reward) which suggests that the complicated wordplay and density found throughout the original Greek version of the fragments was intentionally included by Heraclitus and perhaps hints at deeper literary and philosophical aims hidden within the structure of the fragments [32]. Additionally, Kahn even goes as far as to suggest that the beginnings of formal political philosophy and natural law theory can be found in Heraclitus’s writings [33]. Kahn clearly recognizes the literary and artistic genius in Heraclitus and he is quick to acknowledge the burgeoning idea of political philosophy, yet he stops short of highlighting another important factor of originality that is present in the fragments.

Kahn acknowledges that Heraclitus is unique in that he speaks of reflection upon the self in his fragments. Kahn also agrees with the notion put forth by Diels that Heraclitus’s philosophical starting point was himself and that once Heraclitus had encountered the “microcosm within himself,” he subsequently “discovered it for a second time in the external world" [34]. However, Diels and Kahn emphasize Heraclitus’s “identity of structure” of the “personal world of the psyche” compared to the “larger natural order of the universe,” thereby suggesting that Heraclitus’s investigation of the self is only worthwhile in relation to the development of his thoughts on fire and logos and all other natural concepts found in his philosophy [35]. Further, Kahn suggests that Heraclitus’s understanding of the human condition is “inseparable from an insight into the unifying structure of the universe” and that his other philosophical thoughts are “significant only insofar as they reveal a general truth about the unity of opposites” which primarily applies to a deeper understanding of the human “experience of life and death" [36]. Diels and Kahn are not incorrect to note the uniqueness and the influential role of the self in Heraclitus’s writing; however, their explanation of Heraclitus’s self-reflection merely as a pursuit to find the “truth about the unity of opposites” [37] may restrict a deeper philosophical understanding of the permeation of the concept of paradox in Heraclitean thought.

To understand the chasm in the scholarship on this topic, one only needs to look at the differences between the assertions made by Kahn and Misch. The two scholars disagree on even the basic question of how Heraclitus’s book was structured and how one should properly read the fragments. Moreover, the importance of Heraclitus’s self-reflection is analyzed differently by Misch in his chapter on the discovery of individuality within his masterful work A History of Autobiography in Antiquity. Misch differs from Kahn by declaring that each of the individual fragments need not be understood as part of a larger work but rather that they can each be appreciated as an individual whole unto themselves like an epigram or aphorism as well as that one can see their distinctive form as the “appropriate expression for soliloquy as a method of philosophizing" [38]. Misch states that the all-important fragment from Heraclitus that reads “I have searched myself” indeed symbolizes a “psychological profundity” to be found within his philosophy [39]. Heraclitus provided “insight into the unceasing flow of life [and] he destroyed the static idea of man’s person” because he successfully dissolved the notion of individual life into a “continuity of transitions” and thereby denied “personal identity in man” at least so far as defining one’s person as secure and stabilized by a “permanent element in the living being" [40]. Heraclitus was then able to proceed to his metaphysical theory of change by describing the groundbreaking notion of the continuous “happening” and “becoming” that humans endure which allows for the perpetual “disappearing, oppositeness and the co-existence of opposites” in our lives so that the only true constant is the “law of change” that we ceaselessly experience [41]. By using words such as “happening” and “becoming” to describe the constant fluctuations in life that Heraclitus identified, Misch seems to support the notion that early proto-Existentialist concepts can be traced throughout the fragments. Moreover, Misch’s emphasis on the importance and depth of Heraclitus’s introspection certainly points toward the need for an in-depth look at how it informed his metaphysical theory of flux.

Despite his promising foray into discussing Heraclitus’s work on personal identity and paradox, Misch’s analysis then veers away from a metaphysical account of constant flux. Instead, Misch’s attempt to explore the philosophical ramifications of Heraclitus’s self-reflection seems to lead him to the conclusion that it influenced his ideas on religion and reason more than his notion of paradox or flux. Misch asserts that Heraclitus’s focus on individuality leads to his affirmation of pantheism and provides his definition for the purpose of life [42]. Moreover, he believes that the fragment which reads “[s]uch is the logos of the soul: it increases itself,” means that Heraclitus “stood by the moral experience of self-fulfillment through self-control” and that confining self-improvement of the logos to the human soul “distinguishes life as individuated in men from the other life-processes in the world by its capacity for heightening its own status" [43]. By interpreting Heraclitus’s introspection as a route to his understanding of religion, life, and self-improvement as a way to self-fulfillment, Misch succeeds in highlighting the early self-reflective notions that would go on to influence the practice of the later Stoics. However, a discussion of the role of Heraclitus’s self-reflection in his subsequent personal and metaphysical realizations is missing in the analyses put forth by the aforementioned scholars.

IV. Heraclitus’s Philosophy of Introspection

Beyond his trailblazing use of unique syntax and his contributions toward other forms of wisdom besides natural philosophy, Heraclitus engaged in self-reflection not merely for its own sake but rather as a vehicle for understanding both himself and the world around him. Indeed, the observations gained from Heraclitus’s introspection served as the basis for the paradoxical realizations that went on to underpin his infamous metaphysical outlook of constant flux (πάντα ῥεῖ, the concept that all is flux). The inward-focused reflection is first evidenced by the important fragment that reads “I went in search of myself" [44]. From there, Heraclitus determines that “[i]t belongs to all men to know themselves and to think well" [45]. In his allusion to the famous Delphic maxim (γνῶθι σεαυτόν, “know thyself”), it seems that Heraclitus is suggesting that all men can know themselves and by so doing, they can then “think well” or engage in sound thinking [46]. It appears that this may be some endorsement beyond the Delphic maxim that one should engage in self-reflection in order to gain reasoned insight and wisdom. Another fragment also supports the idea that all men can engage in such a form of reflection because “[t]hinking is shared by all” [47]. Lastly, Heraclitus declares that “[t]hinking well is the greatest excellence and wisdom: to act and speak what is true, perceiving things according to their nature" [48]. If introspection can lead to thinking well, and thinking well is the greatest wisdom, then it would seem that there is some significance and weight placed upon the role of self-reflection as a way to sound thinking. Moreover, if we are to perceive things according to their nature, it seems logical to assume that inward reflection would provide us with knowledge of ourselves and thereby our own nature [49].

However, this path toward wisdom through introspection that Heraclitus discusses is replete with paradox. “You will not find out the limits of the soul by going, even if you travel over every way, so deep is its report,” Heraclitus cautions [50]. One scholar suggests that this fragment shows that Heraclitus was “keenly aware of the enigmas” of the thinking self and that one could not gain knowledge of the soul without delving into it, so Heraclitus’s “voyage of discovery sailed inwards" [51]. It is here that we first see the principle of paradox crop up in his thought. Although one can access knowledge and sound thinking by engaging in self-reflection, Heraclitus also acknowledges the boundless nature of the soul and the perilous journey that awaits those who attempt to delve into themselves. If “he who attempts to see into the soul finds himself drawn [in]to the unfathomable" [52], then how shall one ever gain knowledge of himself or of nature, and how can one achieve sound thinking if such knowledge is bottomless and filled with contradiction?

If self-reflection is to be a route to knowledge of both the self and the world, it must also furnish knowledge of the contradictory nature of both the self and the world. It is in this way that Heraclitus’s introspection leads to his acknowledgment of the inherent contradiction of all things. His realization that the “way up and down is one and the same” [53] because “all things come to pass in accordance with conflict” [54] provides the foundation for his metaphysics and his entire philosophical system, the ideas of which can be traced back to the conclusions that were drawn from his original process of introspection. The conflict that appears to one after gazing into his own soul can thereafter be acknowledged in the world around him. Pursuing wisdom through self-reflection leads to a recognition of internal conflict which then leads to an acknowledgement of the external conflict in the outside world. For Heraclitus, an “opposite is always to be an opponent,” but there is still always a way in which “opposites are somehow the same" [55]. Although he extrapolated this principle in his other discussions on logos and fire and the natural elements of the world, it appears that his underlying determination about the inherent nature of conflict began with his journey of self-reflection and was informed by the conclusions he drew upon the basis of his introspection.

Beyond his realization about conflict, it is also evident that the process of self-reflection additionally lends its conclusions to Heraclitus’s concept of constant flux. One of the most referenced quotes from Heraclitus is from the fragment which discusses stepping into a river. There are three alleged “river fragments” that propose different versions of the same idea and another version of the fragment which is paraphrased in Plato’s Cratylus [56]. Although there is much scholarly debate about which of the fragments are genuine and what should be philosophically interpreted from them, it remains that the concept of the self serves as the foundation of the idea discussed in the fragment. Kahn proposes the following translation: “One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs" [57]. The use of “one” seems to imply the self as an active participant experiencing the surrounding world. Heraclitus’s utilization of self-reflection as a tool for making larger philosophical claims takes center stage in this fragment. Starting the fragment by discussing that the self cannot step twice into the river (because the self is constantly changing) allows Heraclitus to take that realization and then apply it to his subsequent metaphysical notions about the river and then other substances. The idea that external substances cannot be grasped in a single condition because they constantly scatter and rebuild, form and dissolve, and approach and depart all originates from Heraclitus’s introspective notion that the self is also constantly experiencing all of those things. The realization that “one” cannot step into the same exact river as the same exact person leads Heraclitus to a discovery about the external world by virtue of inward reflection.

The paradox in the river fragment is two-fold. Firstly, it appears that Heraclitus is making a statement about both the self and the river: they must each “stay the same only by changing" [58]. The river is the same river yet it has a constantly fluctuating waterflow, and the human self stays the same yet is also constantly changing, growing, and learning. Reflecting upon the ever-changing self allows Heraclitus to experience that same constant flux in the world around him. Secondly, the paradox of this constant state of change is that it is also a constant. The internal changes of the self and the external changes of the surrounding natural world are similar in their experience of undergoing stable, continuous change. Heraclitus “believes in flux, but not as destructive of constancy; rather it is, paradoxically, a necessary condition of constancy" [59]. This constancy amid continual change leads to Heraclitus’s notion of the unity of opposites. The paradox of the constant flux which leads to a stable existence shows that the unity of things actually relies on constant change and conflict in order to survive and continue changing. Through the observations made and conclusions drawn on the basis of his introspection, Heraclitus was then able to take the paradoxical principles found within and extrapolate them outside of himself. Comparing the paradox of internal changes to the external changes that can be witnessed in the outside world in the well-known river fragment is a clear instance of Heraclitus using subjective reflection to inform his metaphysical system of constant flux.

V. The Legacy of Heraclitus’s Self-Reflection: Influences, Reception, and Concluding Remarks

As Simone de Beauvoir says, a philosopher that makes subjectivity and human existence central to his viewpoint is bound to become a literary artist in order to convey the human condition in its full concrete reality [60]. Diels, Kahn, Misch, and scores of other scholars have celebrated the poetics that constitute the fragments we have of Heraclitus’s thoughts. From antiquity into the current age, scholars and laymen alike have disputed the true meaning of the fragments. The mix of syntactical techniques with the convoluted themes of conflict, unity, and paradox succeeds in making Heraclitus’s discussion of the self and metaphysics all the more obscure and difficult to interpret. While it is important to underscore the literary brilliance of Heraclitus and the uniquely subjective narrative to be found in the fragments, it appears that scholars such as Misch and Kahn have neglected to consider a potentially significant aim of the stylized fragments: to serve as a way to both literally and metaphorically convey the internal and external paradoxes that Heraclitus observed and then subsequently built his philosophy upon. His self-reflection underpins his metaphysical outlook of constant flux by recognizing the paradoxical role of constant change in ourselves and in the world around us as the key to unity and stability.

The legacy of Heraclitus’s groundbreaking pursuit toward an understanding of the self also impacted later philosophical movements. His influence could be felt just a generation later in the work of Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school in the third century BCE, as well as in his successor, Cleanthes, who wrote a four-volume commentary on Heraclitus (which is now lost) [61]. Kahn goes as far as to say that the “Stoics are the true Heracliteans of antiquity” because of their “deep study of his written words" [62]. The Heraclitean influence on Stoicism is also clearly identified several times throughout the introspective Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Moreover, the turn toward introspection as a way of doing philosophy can be felt as a dominant force in the Existentialist movement of the 19th and 20th centuries. The concept of personal identity and essence being built upon constant change is reflected in the various Existential renderings of man as a “happening” or a “becoming” that is constantly in flux (and up to us to determine). Although it is difficult to summarize the main tenants of an intellectual movement as diverse as Existentialism, there are some common themes that are woven throughout the ideas of the major thinkers associated with it. Collectively, Existentialists have “characterized human existence as involving a profound tension or conflict, an ongoing struggle between opposing elements" [63]. This underlying conflict that creates tension within ourselves and in the world around us was similarly noticed by Heraclitus who held that it is the existence of that constant conflict which creates stability in our lives. Existentialists also strive to uncover how we are able to define our identities as individuals and assert that it is not some “enduring set of properties” which defines us continuously throughout time, but rather that each individual is an “ongoing happening” and that we can each define ourselves through the continuous “event of becoming” in which we struggle to “find a resolution” to this constant tension that defines our situation in the world [64]. Existentialists accepted a lack of absolutes in the world and had an “awareness that there are no fixed foundations for our beliefs and practices” and “no pregiven essences” which determine the proper goal of human life, so they held that it is essentially up to each individual to consult oneself in order to determine the essence and point to their own lives [65]. By engaging in self-reflection, we are able to discover our position in the universe, undergo the transformational process of constant change to our essences, and determine our own goals in life. These major tenets of the Existentialist movement are strikingly similar to the introspection which increased Heraclitus’s awareness of the world around him and led to his subsequent philosophical realizations about life and his place in it.

While it is interesting to attempt to trace the lineage of Existential and Stoic self-reflection back to the early introspective practices of Heraclitus, it remains difficult to tie a definitive line that connects him with these philosophical movements. There is direct evidence of various Stoic thinkers who were familiar with Heraclitus’s fragments and utilized them to develop their own philosophical thoughts [66]. For instance, Aurelius discusses Heraclitus’s metaphysical stance on fire and flux throughout the Meditations and explicitly refers to certain fragments [67]. However, this type of overt textual evidence or references seem to be largely missing from the writings of Existentialist thinkers. Although there appears to be a clear link between the philosophical methods they proposed just a few decades ago and those of Heraclitus from millennia ago, there is unfortunately a lack of evidentiary quotes or references from the major Existentialists to support the argument for any direct connection between their ideas and Heraclitus. It should be noted that Heraclitus played an influential role in the development of Martin Heidegger’s metaphysical concepts as evidenced by his writings and lectures about him [68]. Despite this outlier, it is easier to trace the lineage between Heraclitus and the Existentialists based on the methods they used for philosophical discovery and the common ideas they shared than it is to definitively prove a connective link through textual evidence alone. There remains a need for deeper research on the history of Heraclitus’s philosophical legacy. Nevertheless, the development of introspection as a major tenant in the Stoic and Existentialist movements seem to support the idea that Heraclitus’s practice of self-reflection was a powerful and influential philosophical development.

Despite the intentional obscurity of some of Heraclitus’s philosophical points, his method of philosophizing via self-reflection provided useful as a starting point for knowing the inner world of the self, realizing the paradoxes that it contains, and then extrapolating those principles to the natural world. An oft-cited fragment suggests that Heraclitus believed that a man’s “character is his fate" [69]. In an an ironic twist of his own fate, Heraclitus’s obscurity has led to centuries of confusion over what he meant in his philosophy and yet he has still managed to influence generations of philosophical conversations and disputes over his ideas. Although brilliant, trailblazing, and vastly influential, his work remains steeped in scholarly debate. The true understanding of his work is shrouded by the paradoxical nature of his writing and of his philosophy itself. As the controversies and discourse rage on about Heraclitus’s philosophy, the important role of his self-reflection as a philosophical method must be recognized and studied further. This paper has argued that it is through his subjective reflections that he was able to unveil the paradoxical situations in and around him which assisted in creating his metaphysical theory of constant flux. It would appear that Heraclitus’s penchant for paradox ultimately became his fate.

NOTES

1. Process philosophy analyzes the processes of becoming and occurring and focuses on the dynamic nature of being. Heraclitus is recognized as the founder of process approach. See Johanna Seibt, “Process Philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/process-philosophy/. Also see section 7 on “Influence” in Daniel Graham, "Heraclitus," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/heraclitus.

2. There is debate over the use of the word “fate” as a translation of the term daimôn used in the original fragment. For the purposes of this paper, the term refers to the “fate” or “luck” that Heraclitus sees as connected to one’s character or ethical stance. See Graham’s “Heraclitus” entry, section 2 on “Method” for extended discussion.

3. Anthony Gottlieb, The Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy From the Greeks to the

Renaissance (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2016), 43.

4. Graham, "Heraclitus.”

5. Ibid.

6. Charles Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 4-5.

7. Gottlieb, The Dream of Reason, 43.

8. Graham, "Heraclitus.”

9. Gottlieb, The Dream of Reason, 43-50.

10. Ibid., 45.

11. Ibid., 45.

12. Ibid., 45.

13. Ibid., 45.

14. Ibid., 43.

15. Ibid., 44. Also see Graham’s “Heraclitus” entry, section 2 on “Method” for a discussion of the

comments about Heraclitus’s weaknesses due to his syntactical ambiguity as described in Aristotle’s Rhetoric.

16. Gottlieb, The Dream of Reason, 44.

17. Cratylus brought Heraclitus’s philosophy to Athens which is where Plato learned of it. It seems that Cratylus’s interpretation strongly influenced Plato and Aristotle’s understanding of Heraclitus. See Graham’s “Heraclitus” entry, section 7 on “Influence” for further discussion.

18. Gottlieb, 52. Line taken from Plato’s Cratylus 411c from The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 447. Hereafter referenced as CDP.

19. Ibid., 52. Line taken from Plato’s Theaetetus, 179e, CDP, 884.

20. Ibid., 53-54.

21. Ibid., 51-53.

22. Ibid., 54.

23. Ibid., 54.

24. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, 6.

25. Ibid., 6.

26. Ibid., 7.

27. Ibid., 7.

28. Ibid., 7.

29. Graham, "Heraclitus.”

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, 15. See p.15 for an extended explanation of Heraclitean political philosophy and influence on Plato.

34. Kahn, 21.

34. Ibid., 21.

35. Ibid., 21.

36. Ibid., 21.

37. Ibid., 21.

38. Georg Misch, A History of Autobiography in Antiquity (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1973), 90.

39. Misch, 91.

40. Misch, 91-92.

41. Ibid., 92.

42. Ibid., 92.

43. Ibid., 95.

44. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, 41. Fragment XXVIII.

45. Ibid., Fragment XXIX.

46. Ibid., 41. See footnote for fragment XXIX.

47. Ibid., 43. Fragment XXXI. See footnote for discussion of πάσι as “all things” or “all men.”

48. Kahn, 43. Fragment XXXII.

49. Kahn suggests that the term “nature” used here is referring to Heraclitus’s concept of logos, but he fails to distinguish if he is referencing a personal logos or some form of universal reason. See Kahn, p. 43, footnote for fragment XXXII.

50. Kahn, 45. Fragment XXXV. See footnote for suggestion that “report” could also mean “measure.”

51. Gottlieb, The Dream of Reason, 45.

52. Misch, A History of Autobiography in Antiquity, 95.

53. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, 75. Fragment CIII.

54. Kahn, 67. Fragment LXXXII.

55. Gottlieb, The Dream of Reason, 47-49.

56. Graham, "Heraclitus.”

57. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, 53. Fragment LI.

58. Graham, "Heraclitus."

59. Ibid.

60. T.Z. Lavine, From Socrates to Sartre: The Philosophic Quest (New York: Bantam Books, 1984), 342.

61. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, 4-5.

62. Kahn, 5.

63. Charles Guignon and Derk Pereboom, eds., Existentialism: Basic Writings, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett), xvii.

64. Guignon and Pereboom, xix.

65. Guignon and Pereboom, xvii.

66. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations: The Annotated Edition, ed. Robin Waterfield (New York: Basic Books, 2021), 45. See footnote 49 on page 45 for extended discussion of Stoic reception of Heraclitus.

67. Aurelius, 138. See Notebook 6.42.

68. Richard Capobianco, “Heraclitus: The Inception of Occidental Thinking; and, Logic: Heraclitus’s Doctrine of the Logos,” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, April 23rd, 2019, https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/heraclitus-the-inception-of-occidental-thinking-and-logic-heraclituss-doctrine-of-the-logos/. Note: Heidegger is commonly identified as a phenomenologist that influenced the Existentialist movement in the early 20th century.

69. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, 81. Fragment CXIV.