Q8: Based on the readings available to you in Curd, compare and contrast Heraclitus and Parmenides in regard to their view of reason (logos) and thought, and the interplay between reason, thought and fundamental reality

8.  Based on the readings available to you in Curd, compare and contrast Heraclitus and Parmenides in regard to their view of reason (logos) and thought, and the interplay between reason, thought and fundamental reality.

I asked Schultz for clarification of this question since it was new in 2011 and thus unprecedented.  I think that the question is trying to get us to give an overview of H & P’s understanding of the arche and what the nature of that arche means for how we discover it and subsequently think about it.  Here is her advice for how to approach it:

Each philosopher has a conception of the arche (first principle-ultimate reality).
What is it?
What is different about how each sees ultimate reality?
What implications does each view have for how we come to understand that reality and what implications does it have for how we order our lives, view philosophy itself?
It is a good practice to do that for each philosopher. What is their view of truth? How do we have access to it? What does that view of truth say about human individuality, relationality, responsibility... etc.?

1. Rough outlines of views on the fundamental reality (arche)

a.     For Heraclitus

                                               i.     arche = logos

                                             ii.     key idea: unity in diversity. 

                                            iii.     the obvious: the plurality in the world, that everything is in a state of flux.

                                            iv.     the not obvious: how we are to account for the unity in the plurality, what the unifying principle is.  (Hint: it’s logos)

                                             v.     logos is the universal law or reason governing all things, binding them into a unity. (In the same way that a law governing a system makes the system one thing?)

                                            vi.     Why fire is an appropriate analogy: Fire is always changing and has no continuity. But how it consumes and kindles (the “upward” and “downward” paths) are governed by law; it gives as much as it takes (e.g. by the law of conservation of energy). So we can still recognize fire and understand it.

b.     For Parmenides

                                               i.     arche = Being (or What-is)

                                             ii.     key idea: Being is one, whole, continuous, unchanging, eternal

                                            iii.     the obvious: plurality and change are false (conclusions drawn from the sensible are bad and unconvincing)

                                            iv.     the not obvious: there is no change; everything is only one thing; only abstract reasoning can get you the truth

2. Differences

a.     Heraclitus and Parmenides disagree not only on the content of the arche but also on what an arche is at all.  Is it a material cause? Efficient? Formal?

b.     For H, becoming is fundamental.  For P, being is fundamental.

3. What these views imply about understanding reality? How do you reason to/about the arche?

a.     For Parmenides, thinking about what-isn’t is fruitless if not impossible.  Since nothing at all is true of unbeing, it can’t be thought about.  And he thinks that the way things appear to us (changing, perishing, diverse, etc.) can’t be the case, so they can’t be thought about.  We just can’t have true and persuasive thoughts about sensible things (er, so-called things).  All such thoughts are deceitful, fit for stupid mortals.  To get to the arche, just reason about it, purely abstractly.  To think about the arche, likewise reason abstractly

b.     For Heraclitus, on the other hand, the arche is something we get to by considering the stuff that Parmenides categorizes as what-isn’t.  From there, we can recognize the governing logos.  If we are to really understand anything at all, we must first understand logos and reconcile with it even though “humans prove unable to understand [this logos] both before hearing it and when they have first heard it.” (22B1)  

                                               i.     (B114) “Those who speak with understanding must rely firmly on what is common to all as a city must rely on [its?] law, and much more firmly.  For all human laws are nourished by one law, the divine law […]”

                                             ii.     (B72) “They are at odds with the logos, with which above all they are in continuous contact, and the things they met every day appear strange to them.