Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 25th 2018

    added pointer to Butti 13, kindly pointed out by David C.

    diff, v9, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 25th 2018

    added pointer to Butti 13, kindly pointed out by David C.

    diff, v9, current

  1. Trying to balance a very one-sided treatment of a complex historical question. All quotes are from Lambek ibid.

    Noah Bernes

    diff, v12, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2023

    Thanks for contributing!

    Looking at the page history now, I see that there were two substantial paragraphs added, unannounced and anonymously, already in 2022:

    and now

    • revision 12 by you (thanks for announcing it on the nForum!)

    Since there are many claims in these added paragraphs, and apparently a desire to refute other claims, I suggest we meticulously source everything so that the reader can come to their own conclusion.

    To that end I have added (here) reference to

    and started to extract some direct quotes from it, in a new section “Diogenes Laertius on Heraclitus” (here, though most brief for the moment).

    The foremost impression from this is that there is not much at all known about what Heraclitus actually said (and less still that would strike us as worthwhile, leaving just a small handful of half-sentences to go by), nor even all that much of what Diogenes Laërtius wrote, so that it may be misleading about the subject matter to give all too lengthy discussions of it.

    Three relevant lines of Heraclitus’ thinking, that I spot from Diogenes account are these:

    [1.] this one thing is wisdom, to understand thought, as that which guides all the world everywhere.

    and

    [2.] All things come into being by conflict of opposites, and the sum of things flows like a stream.

    and

    [3.] Change he called a pathway up and down, and this determines the birth of the world.

    Little to go by as this is, it does seem to fully justify the single brief claim that our entry made before the recent extensive edits, which was:

    Voiced thoughts similar to the unity of opposites later promoted by Hegel

    What I admittedly don’t quite see is sourced justification for many claims that now appear in the lengthy Idea-section after these extensive edits.

    For example, it seems that you added the claim that:

    The Heraclitean Logos considers thought to be an epiphenomenon of matter: the Hegelian Absolute considers matter to be nothing more than a residue of thought.

    What would be a source on which this claim is based? Taken at face value, it seems to actually contradict the item [1.] above, quoted from Diogenes Laërtius.

    Later your paragraph claims that:

    Heraclitus never used the word ‘opposite’ anywhere in his fragments

    But searching our primary secondary source, so to say, Diogenes Lartius, for “opposite” yields a couple of hits, all of which supporting the idea that the concept of opposites did play a key role in Heraclitus’ lore, to the extent that we can say anything about these matters, through the mists of time.

    A little later you write:

    Heraclitus does indeed usually refer to an object changing between one state and its opposite,

    I have trouble seeing how we can say that Heraclitus refers to anything “usually”: the word gives the misleading impression that there is a substantial corpus, which there is not.

    There is further lines from your paragraph that I feel uneasy with, but I leave it at that. I think the entry would best served by some brevity, given the little substance there is about its subject matter.

    For example, lines in your paragraph like

    He never says the Fire can change like from a rock to what is absolutely not a rock.

    seem to try to force a debate on a subject matter which does not support (nor deserve) it.

    diff, v15, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2023

    Just not to forget:

    Looking at the page history now, I see that there were two substantial paragraphs added, unannounced and anonymously, already in 2022:

    and now

    • revision 12 by you (thanks for announcing it on the nForum!)

    Since there are many claims in these added paragraphs, and apparently a desire to refute other claims, I suggest we meticulously source everything so that the reader can come to their own conclusion.

    I am inclined to delete all three of these additions, since the many claims they make are all un-referenced and many seem dubious. I’d be happy to add such claims back in if accompanied by references supprting them.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2023
    • (edited Apr 15th 2023)

    Following #4 and #5 above, I have deleted the additions from

    (happy to add back in any claim that is supported by a reference).

    Kept the small paragraph (here) which used to be there before these edits, adjusted by more specific pointers to the references.

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2023

    Added doi and free RG pdf link for Lambek’s paper

    • {#Lambek} Joachim Lambek, The Influence of Heraclitus on Modern Mathematics, In Scientific Philosophy Today: Essays in Honor of Mario Bunge, edited by Joseph Agassi and Robert S Cohen, 111–21. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co. (1981) doi:10.1007/978-94-009-8462-2_6, ResearchGate pdf

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2023
    • (edited Apr 21st 2023)

    completed the publication data for this item and added link to the journal’s page:

    • Elena Butti, A comparison between Heraclitus’ “Logos” and Lao-Tzu’s “Tao”, Ephemeris 13 1 (2013) [ephemeris:13-1, pdf]

    diff, v18, current