• Soviet Snake@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The only surviving texts by Heraclitus are called “Fragments” which are surviving pieces of supposedly the only written book by him. All of these were scattered from others sources such as citations and paraphrasing of his text. For II and III Kahn refers to fragments 2 and 3 of his ordering of the fragments (there is a debate about the ordering except for I where there are 2 other sources of his time that declare that fragment as the beginning of Heraclitus’ book).

      They appear in the screenshot, but I will paste them as text below:

      II (D. 34) Not comprehending, they hear like the deaf. The saying bears witness to them: absent while present.

      III (D. 2) Although the account (logos) is shared, most men live as though their thinking (phronesis) were a private possession.

      The D. # refers to the Diels-Kranz numbering, which is what’s been used as the default before and even after Kahn’s. If you have any doubt about the meaning let me know, but I’d argue reading Heraclitus is really good for understanding dialectics and his philosophy still holds true in some way until today.

      • urshanabi [he/they]@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        yo been a while cde, i wanted to ask: have you read any other ancient greek/roman authors? i’m looking at iamblichus and his work on pythagoras, and lucretius and his works. i’m not really acquainted (i only read socratic dialogues and not the mid or later platonic works, and parts of aristotle like organon and working through nicomachean & eudemian ethics) and i’m wondering if you have any tips or advice (。◕‿◕。)

        • Soviet Snake@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’ve read Aeschylus, some Plato, not that much. But I’d say it depends on what you want to learn from that. If you ask me, I’d be interested in the Greeks by how were they later interpreted by authors like Kant, Spinoza, Hegel, etc. So I’d say go for Hesiod, Homer, since both of them provide the background for all the Greeks after them and then go for the Milesians, and the other presocratics (which includes Heraclitus) and then Plato and so on. I wouldnt bother with the Romans but maybe thats just ignorance from my part. I dont know if my naswer was good enough but let me know, i am currently to start to read some other greek text so maybe we could help each other!

    • Soviet Snake@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think Heraclitus case is more based since he literally speaks about the inherent dialectics in all sense of life, and the fact that they cannot understand it, which is literally what happens with liberals, not being able to understand dialectical materialism, so the resonance is bigger. While people say Heraclitus thought that fire was the arche, it honestly was just a metaphor for the logos (dialectics).