The Interpretation of Heraclitus
Philosophical Review 31 (6):598-601 (1922)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesK. M. W. Shipton (1985). Heraclitus Fr. 10: A Musical Interpretation. Phronesis 30 (2):111-130.
Anthony K. Jensen (2010). Nietzsche's Interpretation of Heraclitus in Its Historical Context. Epoché 14 (2):335-362.
Theodore De Laguna (1921). The Importance of Heraclitus. Philosophical Review 30 (3):238 - 254.
Malcolm Schofield (2000). The Sun of Heraclitus C. L. J. Schönbeck: Sunbowl or Symbol. Models for the Interpretation of Heraclitus' Sun Notion . Pp. Xlvi + 439, Ills. Amsterdam: Elixir Press, 1998. Cased, Hfl. 275. Isbn: 90-71409-03-. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 50 (01):142-.
Theodore de Laguna (1921). The Importance of Heraclitus. Philosophical Review 30 (3):238-254.
Mantas Adomėnas (1999). Heraclitus on Religion. Phronesis 44 (2):87 - 113.
Heraclitus (1981). The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary. Cambridge Univ Pr.
Theodore De Laguna (1922). The Interpretation of Heraclitus. Philosophical Review 31 (6):598 - 601.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads15 ( #78,614 of 549,062 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
