Markedness Neutralisation and the Unity of Opposites in Heraclitus
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_34_06Keywords:
Heraclitus, opposition, unity of opposites, markedness neutralisation, metaphysicsAbstract
In this article, I shed new light on a misunderstood aspect of Heraclitus’ style. The opposites employed by Heraclitus are often of equal status except that one member of each pair may also appear as a designation for the encompassing whole. I begin by discussing two interpretations of this phenomenon, which were put forward by Roman Dilcher and Alexander Mourelatos. The phenomenon is, I suggest, better understood as being an example of what is known as markedness neutralisation. I argue that this phenomenon should be interpreted as further undermining what Mourelatos identified as a naïve paratactic metaphysics of mere things (NMT), to which Heraclitus was reacting by beginning to develop a hypotactic metaphysics of hierarchies and dependencies as part of a view of the world as being logos-textured. Further, I consider a series of three problems that were put forward by Dilcher, which he thinks must be addressed by anyone who claims that Heraclitus held a unity of opposites thesis. I also consider some related issues, and provide some responses.Downloads
References
BEGLEY, K. (2020). Heraclitus’ Rebuke of Polymathy: A Core Element in the Reflectiveness of His Thought. History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis, v. 23, n. 1 Special Issue: Ancient Modes of Philosophical Inquiry, p. 21-50. https://doi.org/10.30965/26664275-02301005
» https://doi.org/10.30965/26664275-02301005
BEGLEY, K. (2021a). Heraclitus against the Naïve Paratactic Metaphysics of Mere Things. Ancient Philosophy Today: DIALOGOI, v. 3, n. 1 Special Issue: Presocratic Metaphysics , p. 74-97. https://doi.org/10.3366/anph.2021.0043
» https://doi.org/10.3366/anph.2021.0043
BEGLEY, K. (2021b). The only constant is… misunderstanding of Heraclitus. Edinburgh University Press Blog https://euppublishingblog.com/2021/07/19/misunderstanding-of-heraclitus
» https://euppublishingblog.com/2021/07/19/misunderstanding-of-heraclitus
BEGLEY, K. (2022). Knowing Opposites and Formalising Antonymy. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, v. 59, n. 2 Special Issue on Language and Perception, p. 85-101. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259226
» https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259226
BATTISTELLA, E. L. (1990). Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language Albany: State University of New York Press.
BERNABÉ, A.(2009). Expresiones polares em Heráclito. In: HÜLZ PICCONE, E. (ed.). Nuevos Ensayos sobre Heráclito. Actas del Segundo Symposium Heracliteum Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, p. 103-138.
BREMER, D.; DILCHER, R. (2013). Heraklit. In: FLASHAR, H.; BREMER, D.; RECHENAUER, G. (ed.). Die Philosophie der Antike Bd. 1: Frühgriechische Philosophie 2. Halbband. Basel: Schwabe, p. 601-656
BUCHHEIM, T. (1994). Die Vorsokratiker. Ein philosophisches Porträt München: C. H. Beck.
CRUSE, D. A. (1986). Lexical Semantics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DILCHER, R. (1995). Studies in Heraclitus Hildesheim: Olms.
DILCHER, R. (2013). How Not to Conceive Heraclitean Harmony. In: SIDER, D.; OBBINK, D. (ed.). Doctrine and Doxography Berlin: De Gruyter, p. 263-280.
FELDMAN, S. (2023). Heraclitus on the Question of a Common Measure. Rhizomata, v. 11, n. 1, p. 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2023-0001
» https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2023-0001
FINKELBERG, A. (2017). Heraclitus and Thales’ Conceptual Scheme: A Historical Study Leiden: Brill.
GRAHAM, D. W. (2006). Explaining the Cosmos: The Ionian Tradition of Scientific Philosophy Princeton: Princeton University Press.
GRAHAM, D. W. (2019). Heraclitus. In: ZALTA, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Stanford: Stanford University. Disponível em: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/heraclitus
» https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/heraclitus
HUSSEY, E. (1999). Heraclitus. In: LONG, A. A. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 88-112.
JONES, S. (2002). Antonymy: A corpus-based perspective London: Routledge.
KAHN, C. H. (1979). The Art and Thought of Heraclitus Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
KIRK, G. S. (1954). Heraclitus: The Cosmic Fragments Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LAKS, A.; MOST, G. (2016). Early Greek Philosophy Vol. III: Early Ionian Thinkers, Part 2 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LLOYD, G. E. R. (1966). Polarity and Analogy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LYONS, J. (1977). Semantics Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MACKENZIE, M. M. (1988). Heraclitus and the Art of Paradox. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, v. 6, p. 1-37.
MARCOVICH, M. (1967). Heraclitus Merida: Los Andes University Press.
McKIRAHAN, R. D. (2010). Philosophy Before Socrates: An Introduction with Texts and Commentary 2nd ed. Indiana: Hackett Publishing.
MORAVCSIK, J. M. (1989) Heraclitus at the Crossroads of pre-Socratic Thought. In: BOUDOURIS, K. (ed.). Ionian Philosophy Athens: International Association for Greek Philosophy and International Centre for Greek Philosophy and Culture. p. 256-269.
MORAVCSIK, J. M. (1991). Appearance and Reality in Heraclitus’ Philosophy. The Monist, v. 74, n. 4, p. 551-567. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27903262
» https://www.jstor.org/stable/27903262
MOURAVIEV, S. (2006). Heraclitea III.3.B/ii. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.
MOURELATOS, A. P. D. (1973). Heraclitus, Parmenides, and the Naive Metaphysics of Things. In: LEE, E. N.; MOURELATOS, A. P. D.; RORTY, R. M. (ed.). Exegesis and Argument Phronesis, supplementary Vol. 1. Assen: Van Gorcum. p. 16-48
MOURELATOS, A. P. D. (2008). The Route of Parmenides: Revised and Expanded Edition Athens: Parmenides Press.
NEELS, R. (2018a). Elements and Opposites in Heraclitus. Apeiron, v. 51, n. 4, p. 427-452. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2017-0029
» https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2017-0029
NEELS, R. (2018b). Phusis, Opposites, and Ontological Dependence in Heraclitus. History of Philosophy Quarterly, v. 35, n. 3, p. 199-217. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48563632
» https://www.jstor.org/stable/48563632
NEELS, R. (2021). Heraclitus on the Nature of Goodness. Ancient Philosophy, v. 41, p. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil20214111
» https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil20214111
NEELS, R. (2023). Opposites and Explanations in Heraclitus. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, v. 62, p. 1-40.
OSBORNE, C. (1997). Heraclitus. In: TAYLOR, C. C. W. (ed.). Routledge History of Philosophy, Vol. I: From the Beginning to Plato I London: Routledge, p. 80-116.
ROBINSON, T. M. (1987). Heraclitus: Fragments Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
SCULLY, S. (2022). Δίκη/δίκη in Hesiod, Anaximander and Heraclitus. In: IRIBARREN, L.; KONING, H. (ed.). Hesiod and the Beginnings of Greek Philosophy Leiden: Brill. p. 159-176.
SEAFORD, R. (2004). Money and the Early Greek Mind Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SEDLEY, D. (2009). Being, Not-Being, and Mind. In: LE POIDEVIN, R.; SIMONS, P.; McGONIGAL, A.; CAMERON, R. P. (ed.). The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics Abingdon: Routledge. p. 8-17.
STAMATELLOS, G. (2022). Heraclitus on Analogy: A Critical Note. Journal of Ancient Philosophy, v. 16, n. 4, p. 208-212. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i1p208-212
» https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v16i1p208-212
STEKELER-WEITHOFER, P. (2017). Philosophical Oracles. Tropical forms in speculative reflections from Heraclitus to Heidegger. In: FANTINO, E.; MUSS, U.; SCHUBERT, C.; SIER, K. (ed.). Heraklit im Kontext Berlin: De Gruyter. p. 507-532.
STOKES, M. C. (1971). One and Many in Presocratic Philosophy Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies.
VIEIRA, C. (2013). Heraclitus’ Bow Composition. Classical Quarterly, v. 63, n. 2, p. 473-490.
VIEIRA, C. (2022). Heraclitus, Change and Objective Contradictions in Aristotle’s Metaphysics Γ Rhizomata, v. 10, n. 2, p. 183-214. https://doi.org/10.1515/rhiz-2022-0012.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Keith Begley
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.
1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.
