Heraclitus's View

He decided to take the Milesian World View and completely eliminate Being or Arche all together. He is an anarchist (literally meaning one who denies existence of a first principle) in a sense because he believes that nothing is stable, nothing endures. He suggests that our use of language might suggest a somewhat ontological dualism such as when we say rabbit it refers to the rabbit in front of us but also all rabbits. If our language is deceptive and nothing is stable how than be any rational account of this constantly changing reality? He persists in saying that “this logos always is but human beings fail to understand it” (p.34). For him though there is no timeless truths, there is no “right now”. These contradictions, riddles he points out are truth-giving for him, sort of like Zen Buddhist koans (Impossible to step into the same river twice).

Where I actually find a serious contradiction is in his view of logos. If he thinks that their is no arche or Being for nothing persists or endures. Life is ever-changing. He does say that logos rules and guides the cosmos, for it is a single, unchanging law. Also that there is a divine link between logos and the souls of human beings. Through this he claims that there is a possibility of acquiring sure and certain knowledge. So, he believes that we live in a constant flux, but beyond it there is something unchanging? This seems to be beyond contradiction and just plain fallacious argumentatively.