Ahh, Heraclitus

For those unaware, Heraclitus was a notable Greek philosopher who was quoted fairly regularly by other Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle and Plato. While no known complete works survive, scholars have gathered fragments of his work from these quotations. Below are a two of these fragments, 110 and 48 respectively, taken from the Dennis Sweet translation (copyright 1995, University Press of America), and my response to them.

“It is not better for people to obtain all that they want.”

There are those in this Western materialistic culture for whom the first reaction to the above fragment would be disbelief. After all, isn't that why so many Americans are deep in credit card debt – obtaining all that they want? Isn't that very desire part of what keeps capitalism alive?

A strong appetite, of whatever type, be it physical hunger, intellectual, etc. is a large factor in what makes us human. However, with this fragment Heraclitus suggests two ideas very important to survival and happiness: that of moderation in desire and the danger inherent in achieving all that they want.

Without moderation there is loss of value. The value of so many things, material and not, is relative – happiness is known to be good by also experiencing sadness. To obtain all that one wants is to say that one would never want again. One who never wanted would soon be a miserable person, if that one could be called a person at all at that point. There would be no sense of drive for anything and, worse, no identity for the person. While the former is certainly a frightening idea for some, it is the latter that is the real danger.

Identity is found in loss and striving. It is important to note that this does not apply solely to material goods – even a Taoist, shun worldly desire as he/she will, is still striving for something spiritually; this striving is where he/she finds identity. What spark of life would there be for one who had everything they desired? What reason would there be to continue? Eventually, it is very possible that the person who had everything they wanted to want death – and then they would get that too.

“The bow's name is life, its deed is death.”

We are all a bow; within each of us is life and death. We live, yes, but throughout each of us, at all times, parts of us are dying and being replaced. Further, we all gain life through death in the absolutely necessary act of eating. Even if one is a vegetarian – plants, too, are live things we kill, put into our bodies, and convert, through their death, into life. Realizing this, the fragment gains poignancy in that the bow was used for bringing food into the home.

Going deeper, the idea of us as the bow holds even more true. We call ourselves alive, just as “the bow's name is life”, yet in actuality we are all dying, heading towards telos, ending, from the moment of birth; in this all of our deeds – all the things we do, consequential or not – are death.

It is important, too, not to overlook another function of the bow besides bringing in food – that of defending the self, family, or community, that of killing other people. Through the bringing of death, one can further life – the slaughter of the Suitors in The Odyssey comes to mind immediately. The Suitors were causing a slow death to the household, killing it and therefore killing the House of Odysseus both materially and in reputation. Only with their deaths, with the cessation of their actions, could life begin again for the household.

Life and death must be intertwined; one cannot and should not have one without the other. Death is vital – it brings an end to suffering, it keeps us alive, it continues the cycle we are all part of. Is there a distinction between name and deed? Is not one named by one's deeds? If so, then Heraclitus is expressing more than just life and death as separate in one object – he is expressing that they are essentially the same.