1. It is evident that the contrast between ‘life’ and ‘death’ is an important one for Heraclitus. But his words remain cryptic, perhaps more so on this subject than on most others. Ideally, any elucidation would occur as an application of, and as in its turn confirming, some overall view of his theorising activity. The suggestions which follow are not intended to achieve that. I work within the well-worn assumptions that Heraclitus is putting forward a “general theory of the soul” (...) that goes substantially beyond the evidence available; and that Heraclitus is a highly systematic theorist, and in particular that there is a close analogy between his theory of the soul and his theory of the cosmos, with fire playing the central role in each, and each being an application of the master-pattern of ‘unity-in-opposites’. I hope to show that, even within this “traditional” approach, there is room for new insights, if we respect both the Homeric-Hesiodic background and Heraclitus’ own method of self-expression. (shrink)

This comprehensive account of the history of ancient Greek thought circa 600 to 400 B.C. offers an accessible, nontechnical introduction to Presocratic philosophy.

In the field of natural science, Aristotle recognizes as his forerunners a select group of theorists such as Heraclitus of Ephesus, Empedocles of Acragas, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, and Leucippus and Democritus of Abdera. In addition, he mentions in the same contexts some whose claims to be “natural philosophers” are doubtful, yet who deserve notice in the same context, including Parmenides of Elea, Melissus of Samos, the people called Pythagoreans, and Plato as the author of the Timaeus. Aristotle takes seriously almost (...) all of these people, treating them as exemplary pioneers and valuable partners in the enterprise of “natural philosophy.” This article examines earlier opinions on certain fundamental questions about the natural world, as treated in the first three books of the Physics and in the first book of the Metaphysics. In Physics II and III, Aristotle represents most if not all of his predecessors as disastrously misunderstanding, in more than one way, the nature underlying the natural world. (shrink)