89 ideas
| 421 | Men who love wisdom must be inquirers into very many things indeed [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: Men who love wisdom must be inquirers into very many things indeed. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B035), quoted by Clement - Miscellanies 5.140.5 | |
| A reaction: …which invites the question 'Is there anything that a wisdom-seeker should NOT be interested in?' |
| 1491 | Everyone has the potential for self-knowledge and sound thinking [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: Everyone has the potential for self-knowledge and sound thinking. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B116), quoted by John Stobaeus - Anthology 3.05.06 | |
| A reaction: This is true. When people are labelled as incapable of philosophy (e.g. by Plato), it is just that they are slow developers. |
| 5863 | Reason is eternal, but men are foolish [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: Although reason exists forever, men are foolish. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE]), quoted by Aristotle - The Art of Rhetoric 1407b | |
| A reaction: The despair of all philosophers (e.g. Plato) who think reason is the easiest thing in the world, and stares everyone in the face, and yet people seem to spurn this supreme gift from the gods. They needed the optimism of the career teacher. |
| 414 | Logos is common to all, but most people live as if they have a private understanding [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: Although the universal law (logos) is common to all, the majority live as if they had understanding peculiar to themselves. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B002), quoted by Sextus Empiricus - Against the Professors (six books) 7.133.4- | |
| A reaction: Heraclitus mentions 'logos' in just three fragments - this one, and Idea 15660 and Idea 424. |
| 425 | A thing can have opposing tensions but be in harmony, like a lyre [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: They do not understand how that which differs with itself is in agreement: harmony consists of opposing tensions, like that of the bow and the lyre. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B051), quoted by Hippolytus - Refutation of All Heresies 9.9.2 | |
| A reaction: Like squabbling couples who resent outside intervention. The remark suggests the virtues of 'dialectic', and may get to the heart of what philosophy is. |
| 416 | Beautiful harmony comes from things that are in opposition to one another [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: That which is in opposition is in concert, and from things that differ comes the beautiful harmony. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B008), quoted by Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics 1155b04 |
| 9535 | 'Contradictory' propositions always differ in truth-value [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Two propositions are 'contradictory' if they are never both true and never both false either, which means that ¬(A↔B) is a tautology. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.3) |
| 9512 | We write the 'negation' of P (not-P) as ¬ [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: We write 'not-P' as ¬P. This is called the 'negation' of P. The 'double negation' of P (not not-P) would be written as ¬¬P. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: Lemmons use of -P is no longer in use for 'not'. A tilde sign (squiggle) is also used for 'not', but some interpreters give that a subtly different meaning (involving vagueness). The sign ¬ is sometimes called 'hook' or 'corner'. |
| 9508 | The sign |- may be read as 'therefore' [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: I introduce the sign |- to mean 'we may validly conclude'. To call it the 'assertion sign' is misleading. It may conveniently be read as 'therefore'. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: [Actually no gap between the vertical and horizontal strokes of the sign] As well as meaning 'assertion', it may also mean 'it is a theorem that' (with no proof shown). |
| 9509 | That proposition that both P and Q is their 'conjunction', written P∧Q [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If P and Q are any two propositions, the proposition that both P and Q is called the 'conjunction' of P and Q, and is written P∧Q. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.3) | |
| A reaction: [I use the more fashionable inverted-v '∧', rather than Lemmon's '&', which no longer seems to be used] P∧Q can also be defined as ¬(¬P∨¬Q) |
| 9511 | We write the conditional 'if P (antecedent) then Q (consequent)' as P→Q [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: We write 'if P then Q' as P→Q. This is called a 'conditional', with P as its 'antecedent', and Q as its 'consequent'. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.2) | |
| A reaction: P→Q can also be written as ¬P∨Q. |
| 9510 | That proposition that either P or Q is their 'disjunction', written P∨Q [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If P and Q are any two propositions, the proposition that either P or Q is called the 'disjunction' of P and Q, and is written P∨Q. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.3) | |
| A reaction: This is inclusive-or (meaning 'P, or Q, or both'), and not exlusive-or (Boolean XOR), which means 'P, or Q, but not both'. The ∨ sign is sometimes called 'vel' (Latin). |
| 9514 | If A and B are 'interderivable' from one another we may write A -||- B [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If we say that A and B are 'interderivable' from one another (that is, A |- B and B |- A), then we may write A -||- B. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9513 | We write 'P if and only if Q' as P↔Q; it is also P iff Q, or (P→Q)∧(Q→P) [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: We write 'P if and only if Q' as P↔Q. It is called the 'biconditional', often abbreviate in writing as 'iff'. It also says that P is both sufficient and necessary for Q, and may be written out in full as (P→Q)∧(Q→P). | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.4) | |
| A reaction: If this symbol is found in a sequence, the first move in a proof is to expand it to the full version. |
| 9516 | A 'well-formed formula' follows the rules for variables, ¬, →, ∧, ∨, and ↔ [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: A 'well-formed formula' of the propositional calculus is a sequence of symbols which follows the rules for variables, ¬, →, ∧, ∨, and ↔. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.1) |
| 9518 | A 'theorem' is the conclusion of a provable sequent with zero assumptions [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: A 'theorem' of logic is the conclusion of a provable sequent in which the number of assumptions is zero. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: This is what Quine and others call a 'logical truth'. |
| 9528 | A wff is a 'tautology' if all assignments to variables result in the value T [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If a well-formed formula of propositional calculus takes the value T for all possible assignments of truth-values to its variables, it is said to be a 'tautology'. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.3) |
| 9530 | A wff is 'contingent' if produces at least one T and at least one F [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If a well-formed formula of propositional calculus takes at least one T and at least one F for all the assignments of truth-values to its variables, it is said to be 'contingent'. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.3) |
| 9517 | The 'scope' of a connective is the connective, the linked formulae, and the brackets [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: The 'scope' of a connective in a certain formula is the formulae linked by the connective, together with the connective itself and the (theoretically) encircling brackets | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.1) |
| 9529 | A wff is 'inconsistent' if all assignments to variables result in the value F [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If a well-formed formula of propositional calculus takes the value F for all possible assignments of truth-values to its variables, it is said to be 'inconsistent'. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.3) |
| 9519 | A 'substitution-instance' is a wff formed by consistent replacing variables with wffs [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: A 'substitution-instance' is a wff which results by replacing one or more variables throughout with the same wffs (the same wff replacing each variable). | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) |
| 9531 | 'Contrary' propositions are never both true, so that ¬(A∧B) is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If A and B are expressible in propositional calculus notation, they are 'contrary' if they are never both true, which may be tested by the truth-table for ¬(A∧B), which is a tautology if they are contrary. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.3) |
| 9534 | Two propositions are 'equivalent' if they mirror one another's truth-value [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Two propositions are 'equivalent' if whenever A is true B is true, and whenever B is true A is true, in which case A↔B is a tautology. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.3) |
| 9532 | 'Subcontrary' propositions are never both false, so that A∨B is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If A and B are expressible in propositional calculus notation, they are 'subcontrary' if they are never both false, which may be tested by the truth-table for A∨B, which is a tautology if they are subcontrary. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.3) |
| 9533 | A 'implies' B if B is true whenever A is true (so that A→B is tautologous) [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: One proposition A 'implies' a proposition B if whenever A is true B is true (but not necessarily conversely), which is only the case if A→B is tautologous. Hence B 'is implied' by A. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.3) |
| 9394 | MPP: Given A and A→B, we may derive B [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Modus Ponendo Ponens (MPP): Given A and A→B, we may derive B as a conclusion. B will rest on any assumptions that have been made. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9397 | CP: Given a proof of B from A as assumption, we may derive A→B [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Conditional Proof (CP): Given a proof of B from A as assumption, we may derive A→B as conclusion, on the remaining assumptions (if any). | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9393 | A: we may assume any proposition at any stage [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Assumptions (A): any proposition may be introduced at any stage of a proof. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9399 | ∧E: Given A∧B, we may derive either A or B separately [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: And-Elimination (∧E): Given A∧B, we may derive either A or B separately. The conclusions will depend on the assumptions of the premiss. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9401 | ∨E: Derive C from A∨B, if C can be derived both from A and from B [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Or-Elimination (∨E): Given A∨B, we may derive C if it is proved from A as assumption and from B as assumption. This will also depend on prior assumptions. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9398 | ∧I: Given A and B, we may derive A∧B [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: And-Introduction (&I): Given A and B, we may derive A∧B as conclusion. This depends on their previous assumptions. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9402 | RAA: If assuming A will prove B∧¬B, then derive ¬A [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Reduction ad Absurdum (RAA): Given a proof of B∧¬B from A as assumption, we may derive ¬A as conclusion, depending on the remaining assumptions (if any). | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9395 | MTT: Given ¬B and A→B, we derive ¬A [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Modus Tollendo Tollens (MTT): Given ¬B and A→B, we derive ¬A as a conclusion. ¬A depends on any assumptions that have been made | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9396 | DN: Given A, we may derive ¬¬A [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Double Negation (DN): Given A, we may derive ¬¬A as a conclusion, and vice versa. The conclusion depends on the assumptions of the premiss. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9400 | ∨I: Given either A or B separately, we may derive A∨B [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Or-Introduction (∨I): Given either A or B separately, we may derive A∨B as conclusion. This depends on the assumption of the premisses. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 1.5) |
| 9522 | 'Modus ponendo tollens' (MPT) says P, ¬(P ∧ Q) |- ¬Q [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: 'Modus ponendo tollens' (MPT) says that if the negation of a conjunction holds and also one of its conjuncts, then the negation of the other conjunct holds. Thus P, ¬(P ∧ Q) |- ¬Q may be introduced as a theorem. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: Unlike Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, this is a derived rule. |
| 9521 | 'Modus tollendo ponens' (MTP) says ¬P, P ∨ Q |- Q [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: 'Modus tollendo ponens' (MTP) says that if a disjunction holds and also the negation of one of its disjuncts, then the other disjunct holds. Thus ¬P, P ∨ Q |- Q may be introduced as a theorem. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: Unlike Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, this is a derived rule. |
| 9525 | We can change conditionals into negated conjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬(P ∧ ¬Q) [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: The proof that P→Q -||- ¬(P ∧ ¬Q) is useful for enabling us to change conditionals into negated conjunctions | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) |
| 9524 | We can change conditionals into disjunctions with P→Q -||- ¬P ∨ Q [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: The proof that P→Q -||- ¬P ∨ Q is useful for enabling us to change conditionals into disjunctions. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) |
| 9523 | De Morgan's Laws make negated conjunctions/disjunctions into non-negated disjunctions/conjunctions [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: The forms of De Morgan's Laws [P∨Q -||- ¬(¬P ∧ ¬Q); ¬(P∨Q) -||- ¬P ∧ ¬Q; ¬(P∧Q) -||- ¬P ∨ ¬Q); P∧Q -||- ¬(¬P∨¬Q)] transform negated conjunctions and disjunctions into non-negated disjunctions and conjunctions respectively. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) |
| 9527 | The Distributive Laws can rearrange a pair of conjunctions or disjunctions [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: The Distributive Laws say that P ∧ (Q∨R) -||- (P∧Q) ∨ (P∧R), and that P ∨ (Q∨R) -||- (P∨Q) ∧ (P∨R) | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) |
| 9526 | We can change conjunctions into negated conditionals with P→Q -||- ¬(P → ¬Q) [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: The proof that P∧Q -||- ¬(P → ¬Q) is useful for enabling us to change conjunctions into negated conditionals. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) |
| 9537 | Truth-tables are good for showing invalidity [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: The truth-table approach enables us to show the invalidity of argument-patterns, as well as their validity. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.4) |
| 9538 | A truth-table test is entirely mechanical, but this won't work for more complex logic [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: A truth-table test is entirely mechanical, ..and in propositional logic we can even generate proofs mechanically for tautological sequences, ..but this mechanical approach breaks down with predicate calculus, and proof-discovery is an imaginative process. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.5) |
| 9536 | If any of the nine rules of propositional logic are applied to tautologies, the result is a tautology [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If any application of the nine derivation rules of propositional logic is made on tautologous sequents, we have demonstrated that the result is always a tautologous sequent. Thus the system is consistent. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.4) | |
| A reaction: The term 'sound' tends to be used now, rather than 'consistent'. See Lemmon for the proofs of each of the nine rules. |
| 9539 | Propositional logic is complete, since all of its tautologous sequents are derivable [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: A logical system is complete is all expressions of a specified kind are derivable in it. If we specify tautologous sequent-expressions, then propositional logic is complete, because we can show that all tautologous sequents are derivable. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.5) | |
| A reaction: [See Lemmon 2.5 for details of the proofs] |
| 13909 | Write '(∀x)(...)' to mean 'take any x: then...', and '(∃x)(...)' to mean 'there is an x such that....' [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Just as '(∀x)(...)' is to mean 'take any x: then....', so we write '(∃x)(...)' to mean 'there is an x such that....' | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: [Actually Lemmon gives the universal quantifier symbol as '(x)', but the inverted A ('∀') seems to have replaced it these days] |
| 13902 | 'Gm' says m has property G, and 'Pmn' says m has relation P to n [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: A predicate letter followed by one name expresses a property ('Gm'), and a predicate-letter followed by two names expresses a relation ('Pmn'). We could write 'Pmno' for a complex relation like betweenness. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 3.1) |
| 13911 | The 'symbols' are bracket, connective, term, variable, predicate letter, reverse-E [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: I define a 'symbol' (of the predicate calculus) as either a bracket or a logical connective or a term or an individual variable or a predicate-letter or reverse-E (∃). | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 4.1) |
| 13910 | Our notation uses 'predicate-letters' (for 'properties'), 'variables', 'proper names', 'connectives' and 'quantifiers' [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Quantifier-notation might be thus: first, render into sentences about 'properties', and use 'predicate-letters' for them; second, introduce 'variables'; third, introduce propositional logic 'connectives' and 'quantifiers'. Plus letters for 'proper names'. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 3.1) |
| 13904 | Universal Elimination (UE) lets us infer that an object has F, from all things having F [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Our rule of universal quantifier elimination (UE) lets us infer that any particular object has F from the premiss that all things have F. It is a natural extension of &E (and-elimination), as universal propositions generally affirm a complex conjunction. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 3.2) |
| 13901 | Predicate logic uses propositional connectives and variables, plus new introduction and elimination rules [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: In predicate calculus we take over the propositional connectives and propositional variables - but we need additional rules for handling quantifiers: four rules, an introduction and elimination rule for the universal and existential quantifiers. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965]) | |
| A reaction: This is Lemmon's natural deduction approach (invented by Gentzen), which is largely built on introduction and elimination rules. |
| 13903 | Universal elimination if you start with the universal, introduction if you want to end with it [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: The elimination rule for the universal quantifier concerns the use of a universal proposition as a premiss to establish some conclusion, whilst the introduction rule concerns what is required by way of a premiss for a universal proposition as conclusion. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 3.2) | |
| A reaction: So if you start with the universal, you need to eliminate it, and if you start without it you need to introduce it. |
| 13906 | With finite named objects, we can generalise with &-Intro, but otherwise we need ∀-Intro [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If there are just three objects and each has F, then by an extension of &I we are sure everything has F. This is of no avail, however, if our universe is infinitely large or if not all objects have names. We need a new device, Universal Introduction, UI. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 3.2) |
| 13908 | UE all-to-one; UI one-to-all; EI arbitrary-to-one; EE proof-to-one [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: Univ Elim UE - if everything is F, then something is F; Univ Intro UI - if an arbitrary thing is F, everything is F; Exist Intro EI - if an arbitrary thing is F, something is F; Exist Elim EE - if a proof needed an object, there is one. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 3.3) | |
| A reaction: [My summary of Lemmon's four main rules for predicate calculus] This is the natural deduction approach, of trying to present the logic entirely in terms of introduction and elimination rules. See Bostock on that. |
| 13905 | If there is a finite domain and all objects have names, complex conjunctions can replace universal quantifiers [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: If all objects in a given universe had names which we knew and there were only finitely many of them, then we could always replace a universal proposition about that universe by a complex conjunction. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 3.2) |
| 13900 | 'Some Frenchmen are generous' is rendered by (∃x)(Fx→Gx), and not with the conditional → [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: It is a common mistake to render 'some Frenchmen are generous' by (∃x)(Fx→Gx) rather than the correct (∃x)(Fx&Gx). 'All Frenchmen are generous' is properly rendered by a conditional, and true if there are no Frenchmen. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 3.1) | |
| A reaction: The existential quantifier implies the existence of an x, but the universal quantifier does not. |
| 9520 | The paradoxes of material implication are P |- Q → P, and ¬P |- P → Q [Lemmon] |
| Full Idea: The paradoxes of material implication are P |- Q → P, and ¬P |- P → Q. That is, since Napoleon was French, then if the moon is blue then Napoleon was French; and since Napoleon was not Chinese, then if Napoleon was Chinese, the moon is blue. | |
| From: E.J. Lemmon (Beginning Logic [1965], 2.2) | |
| A reaction: This is why the symbol → does not really mean the 'if...then' of ordinary English. Russell named it 'material implication' to show that it was a distinctively logical operator. |
| 1312 | If everything is and isn't then everything is true, and a midway between true and false makes everything false [Aristotle on Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: The remark of Heraclitus that all things are and are not effectively renders all assertions true, and that of Anaxagoras that there is an intermediary between assertion and negation makes all assertions false. | |
| From: comment on Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE]) by Aristotle - Metaphysics 1012a | |
| A reaction: Compare Idea 416. Heraclitus is discussing truth-value 'gluts', as in paraconsistent logic, and Anaxagoras is discussing truth-value 'gaps', as in three-valued Kleene logic. |
| 15658 | The hidden harmony is stronger than the visible [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: The hidden harmony is stronger (or 'better') than the visible. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B055), quoted by Hippolytus - Refutation of All Heresies 9.9.5 | |
| A reaction: 'An unapparent connection [harmonia] is stronger than an apparent one' is Curd's translation. I'm taking this for essentialism. It is the basic idea of the essentialising child (see Gelman). The hidden explains the apparent. |
| 13782 | Everything gives way, and nothing stands fast [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: Everything gives way, and nothing stands fast. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE]), quoted by Plato - Cratylus 402a | |
| A reaction: This is as good a summary of the Heraclitus view of things as any, and Plato appears to present it as a verbatim quotation. |
| 11853 | A mixed drink separates if it is not stirred [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: The mixed drink, of wine, cheese and barley, separates if it is not stirred. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B125) | |
| A reaction: Wiggins quotes this, because it seems to be Heraclitus struggling to decide what sortal his drink falls under. I take it to be a problem of vagueness, since separation and mixing occur along a continuum, like a sorites. |
| 427 | It is not possible to step twice into the same river [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: It is not possible to step twice into the same river. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B091), quoted by Plutarch - 24: The E at Delphi 392b10- |
| 11091 | You can bathe in the same river twice, but not in the same river stage [Quine on Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: You can bathe in the same river twice, but not in the same river stage. | |
| From: comment on Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE]) by Willard Quine - Identity, Ostension, and Hypostasis 1 | |
| A reaction: This seems to make Quine a 'perdurantist', committed to time-slices of objects, rather than whole objects enduring through change. |
| 2064 | If flux is continuous, then lack of change can't be a property, so everything changes in every possible way [Plato on Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: According to Heracliteans, since things must be changing, and since lack of change can't be a property of anything, then everything is always undergoing change of every kind. | |
| From: comment on Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B030) by Plato - Theaetetus 182a |
| 430 | Senses are no use if the soul is corrupt [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: The eyes and ears are bad witnesses for men if they have barbarian souls. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B107), quoted by Sextus Empiricus - Against the Mathematicians 7.126 |
| 1500 | When we sleep, reason closes down as the senses do [Heraclitus, by Sext.Empiricus] |
| Full Idea: Since when we sleep the senses are closed, mind is separated from its surroundings and loses the power of memory. When we wake the mind re-contacts the world, and regains the power of reason. | |
| From: report of Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], A16) by Sextus Empiricus - Against the Professors (six books) 7.130 |
| 417 | Donkeys prefer chaff to gold [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: Donkeys prefer chaff to gold. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B009), quoted by Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics 1176a07 |
| 426 | Sea water is life-giving for fish, but not for people [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: Sea-water is the purest and the most polluted: for fish it is drinkable and life-giving; for men, not drinkable and destructive. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B061), quoted by Hippolytus - Refutation of All Heresies 9.10.5 |
| 431 | Health, feeding and rest are only made good by disease, hunger and weariness [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: Disease makes health pleasant and good, hunger makes satisfaction good, weariness makes rest good. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B111), quoted by John Stobaeus - Anthology 3.1.178 |
| 429 | To God (though not to humans) all things are beautiful and good and just [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: To God, all things are beautiful, good and just; but men have assumed some things to be unjust, others just. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B102), quoted by Porphyry - Notes on Homer Il.4.4 | |
| A reaction: The idea that all things are actually 'just' strikes me as nonsense. I also don't think I can get my head round the idea that everything is actually good and beautiful. Must try harder. |
| 12294 | Good and evil are the same thing [Heraclitus, by Aristotle] |
| Full Idea: Heraclitus said that good and evil are the same thing. | |
| From: report of Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], 58/102) by Aristotle - Topics 159b32 | |
| A reaction: Heaven knows what he meant by this, though it sounds suspiciously like moral nihilism. Maybe Heraclitus was not a very nice man. Or is the thought a more sophisticated one, in line with Nietzsche's remarks about cultural morality? |
| 419 | If one does not hope, one will not find the unhoped-for, since nothing leads to it [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: If one does not hope, one will not find the unhoped-for, since there is no trail leading to it and no path. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B018), quoted by Clement - Miscellanies 2.17.4 | |
| A reaction: The best remark about hope I have ever encountered. Usually they are empty platitudes. |
| 415 | If happiness is bodily pleasure, then oxen are happy when they have vetch to eat [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: If happiness lay in bodily pleasures, we would call oxen happy when they find vetch to eat. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B004), quoted by Albertus Magnus - On Vegetables 6.401 | |
| A reaction: But surely oxen are happy when they find some good vetch? Presumably, though, they are not 'eudaimon'. What is the complete fulfilment of life for an ox? |
| 5155 | It is hard to fight against emotion, but harder still to fight against pleasure [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: It is hard to fight against emotion, but harder still to fight against pleasure. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B085), quoted by Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics 1105a08 | |
| A reaction: 'Emotion' is the Greek word 'thumos'. "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it", said Oscar Wilde. Heraclitus underestimates how very good many modern people are at dieting. |
| 433 | For man character is destiny [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: For man character is destiny. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B119), quoted by John Stobaeus - Anthology 4.40.23 | |
| A reaction: This is the extreme opposite of Sartre's existentialist claim that we can entirely change ourselves. Personally I am with Heraclitus, though I don't see why our destined character shouldn't be modified (e.g. by education). |
| 422 | The people should fight for the law as if for their city-wall [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: The people should fight for the law as if for their city-wall. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B044), quoted by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 09.2 | |
| A reaction: This may be the first recorded assertion of the rule of law, and hence of the separation of powers. We still have plenty of people who reject this principle. |
| 6005 | Animals are dangerous and nourishing, and can't form contracts of justice [Hermarchus, by Sedley] |
| Full Idea: Hermarchus said that animal killing is justified by considerations of human safety and nourishment and by animals' inability to form contractual relations of justice with us. | |
| From: report of Hermarchus (fragments/reports [c.270 BCE]) by David A. Sedley - Hermarchus | |
| A reaction: Could the last argument be used to justify torturing animals? Or could we eat a human who was too brain-damaged to form contracts? |
| 614 | Heraclitus said sometimes everything becomes fire [Heraclitus, by Aristotle] |
| Full Idea: Heraclitus claimed that from time to time everything becomes fire. | |
| From: report of Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE]) by Aristotle - Metaphysics 1067a |
| 424 | Reason tells us that all things are one [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: When you have listened, not to me but to the law (logos), it is wise to agree that all things are one. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B050), quoted by Hippolytus - Refutation of All Heresies 9.9.1 |
| 5096 | Heraclitus says that at some time everything becomes fire [Heraclitus, by Aristotle] |
| Full Idea: Heraclitus says that at some time everything becomes fire. | |
| From: report of Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE]) by Aristotle - Physics 204b37 | |
| A reaction: Modern cosmology says that Heraclitus was right (pretty much). If we say 'energy' instead of 'fire' (which may be what he meant), then he is absolutely spot-on. |
| 17539 | The sayings of Heraclitus are still correct, if we replace 'fire' with 'energy' [Heraclitus, by Heisenberg] |
| Full Idea: If we replace Heraclitus's word 'fire' by the word 'energy' we can almost repeat his statements word for word from our modern point of view. | |
| From: report of Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE]) by Werner Heisenberg - Physics and Philosophy 04 | |
| A reaction: My problem has always been that I have no idea what 'energy' is, so I'm none the wiser. |
| 3054 | Heraclitus said fire could be transformed to create the other lower elements [Heraclitus, by Diog. Laertius] |
| Full Idea: Heraclitus taught that fire when densified becomes liquid, and becoming concrete, becomes also water; again, that the water when concrete is turned to earth, and this is the road down. | |
| From: report of Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 09.1.6 |
| 15660 | Logos is the source of everything, and my theories separate and explain each nature [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: All things come into being according to this Law ('logos'), ...and I expound theories (words) and processes (actions) separating each thing according to its nature and explaining how it is made. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B001), quoted by Sextus Empiricus - Against the Mathematicians 7.133 | |
| A reaction: I like the fact that things are separated according to their natures (particulars!), and not that natures are somehow bestowed on individuals. |
| 12269 | All things are in a state of motion [Heraclitus, by Aristotle] |
| Full Idea: All things are in a state of motion. | |
| From: report of Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE]) by Aristotle - Topics 104b22 | |
| A reaction: This seems right, I would say. It seems to make a 'process' the fundamental category of ontology, rather than an 'object'. |
| 420 | The cosmos is eternal not created, and is an ever-living and changing fire [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: This cosmos, which is the same for all, was not created by any one of the gods or of mankind, but it was ever and is and shall be ever-living fire, kindled and quenched in measure. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B030), quoted by Clement - Miscellanies 5.1.103 |
| 1499 | Heraclitus says intelligence draws on divine reason [Heraclitus, by Sext.Empiricus] |
| Full Idea: According to Heraclitus we become intelligent by drawing on divine reason. | |
| From: report of Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], A16) by Sextus Empiricus - Against the Professors (six books) 7.129 |
| 15659 | Purifying yourself with blood is as crazy as using mud to wash off mud [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: They purify themselves by staining themselves with other blood, as if one were to step into mud to wash off mud. But a man would be thought mad if any of his fellow-men should perceive him acting thus. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B005), quoted by Origen - Against Celsus 7.62 |
| 1501 | In their ignorance people pray to statues, which is like talking to a house [Heraclitus] |
| Full Idea: In their ignorance of the true nature of gods and heroes people pray to these statues, which is like someone holding a conversation with a house. | |
| From: Heraclitus (fragments/reports [c.500 BCE], B005), quoted by Anon (Pyth) - Theosophia Tubigensis 68 |