Heraclitus By Karl Popper

Heraclitus

It is not until Heraclitus that we find in Greece theories which

could be compared in their historicist character with the doctrine of

the chosen people. In Homer’s theistic or rather polytheistic

interpretation, history is the product of divine will. But the

Homeric gods do not lay down general laws for its development.

What Homer tries to stress and to explain is not the unity of

history, but rather its lack of unity. The author of the play on the

Stage of History is not one God; a whole variety of gods dabble in

it. What the Homeric interpretation shares with the Jewish is a

certain vague feeling of destiny, and the idea of powers behind the

scenes. But ultimate destiny, according to Homer, is not disclosed;

unlike its Jewish counterpart, it remains mysterious.

The first Greek to introduce a more markedly historicist

doctrine was Hesiod, who was probably influenced by oriental

sources. He made use of the idea of a general trend or tendency in

historical development. His interpretation of history is pessimistic.

He believes that mankind, in their development down from the

Golden Age, are destined to degenerate, both physically and

morally. The culmination of the various historicist ideas proffered

by the early Greek philosophers came with Plato, who, in an

attempt to interpret the history and social life of the Greek tribes,

and especially of the Athenians, painted a grandiose philosophical

picture of the world. He was strongly influenced in his historicism

by various forerunners, especially by Hesiod; but the most

important influence came from Heraclitus.

Heraclitus was the philosopher who discovered the idea of

change. Down to this time, the Greek philosophers, influenced by

oriental ideas, had viewed the world as a huge edifice of which the

material things were the building material.1 It was the totality of

things—the cosmos (which originally seems to have been an

oriental tent or mantle). The questions which the philosophers

asked themselves were, ‘What stuff is the world made of?’ or

‘How is it constructed, what is its true ground-plan?’. They

considered philosophy, or physics (the two were indistinguishable

for a long time), as the investigation of ‘nature’, i.e. of the original

material out of which this edifice, the world, had been built. As far

as any processes were considered, they were thought of either as

going on within the edifice, or else as constructing or maintaining

it, disturbing and restoring the stability or balance of a structure

which was considered to be fundamentally static. They were cyclic

processes (apart from the processes connected with the origin of

the edifice; the question ‘Who has made it?’ was discussed by the

orientals, by Hesiod, and by others). This very natural approach,

natural even to many of us to-day, was superseded by the genius of

Heraclitus. The view he introduced was that there was no such

edifice, no stable structure, no cosmos. ‘The cosmos, at best, is like

a rubbish heap scattered at random’, is one of his sayings.2 He

visualized the world not as an edifice, but rather as one colossal

process; not as the sum-total of all things, but rather as the, totality

of all events, or changes, or facts. ‘Everything is in flux and

nothing is at rest’, is the motto of his philosophy.

Heraclitus’ discovery influenced the development of Greek

philosophy for a long time. The philosophies of Parmenides,

Democritus, Plato, and Aristotle can. all be appropriately described

as attempts to solve the problems of that changing world which

Heraclitus had discovered. The greatness of this discovery can

hardly be overrated. It has been described as a terrifying one, and

its effect has been compared with that of ‘an earthquake, in which

everything .. seems to sway’3. And I do not doubt that this

discovery was impressed upon Heraclitus by terrifying personal

experiences suffered as a result of the social and political

disturbances of his day. Heraclitus, the first philosopher to deal not

only with ‘nature’ but even more with ethico-political problems,

lived in an age of social revolution. It was in his time that the

Greek tribal aristocracies were beginning to yield to the new force

of democracy.

In order to understand the effect of this revolution, we must

remember the stability and rigidity of social life in a tribal

aristocracy. Social life is determined by social

...