Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger claim to be deeply moved by him, but I’ve read all his fragments and I got to say I’m disappointed... I like aphoristic works—but...am I missing something...? Even in aphoristic work I don’t care for like the Tao Te Ching, I can still see why people are attracted to it, but with Heraclitus I’m lost... most of them nonsensical or scientifically wrong, or at the very least: not insightful.
English translation changes everything. You need to understand the nature of the Presocratic thinkers around him and the original Greek (even just key words) to understand him properly. There's also a lot of metaphors which are designed for the lay person not to understand. Watch this:
Heraclitus was just a shit and boring philosopher. Parmenides' poem moved me even through an English translation
Heraclitus wasn't writing a story. You're moronic.
projection
This is true, but a good and detailed --not introductory-- book on the pre-socratics will always have notes on why fragments are problematic or not (most of the time making clear that some words were or were not used at some historical time as the cited poster said).
In other to get somewhat of an access to the thought of pre-socratics, you must read what other writers, who had access to their complete works, wrote about him; doxographical works, e.g., Aristotles' or Plato's critics etc. The Phoenix Pre-Socratics series offers those passages, if you are interested.
>Thunderbolt steers everything
This statement alone is sufficient.
Ananke?
Read The Art and Thought of Heraclitus by Charles Kahn
hes ok but stupid compared to almost any buddhist thinker
>duude everything changes
>war good
>fire
>muh logos
People only LARP and pretend to think he’s deep
Filtered.
Give a single refutation. Protip: you can't.
If everything changes how come this response seem linearly attached to rest of the (You) chain in the comment section?
Because you're dumb. Next question.
That changes everything.
everything changes
Congratulations, you couldn't even understand the most simple feature of Heraclitus
Which is what? That everything doesn't change?
Yes, Heraclitus' philosophy is not 'constant change', you're an overconfident moron filtered by translation.
Who said it was his whole philosophy?
It's not even in his philosophy.
what about that river analogy?
The one which also appears as saying that the banks stay the same but the water moves?
His main idea in the surviving fragments is the identity of opposites. In terms of change, he gives examples of things that stay the same by constantly changing, for example a river staying the same river although different water always flows in it.
>everything changes
>in which case there is no permanent subject which is capable of change
>nothing exists
>therefore nothing changes
He was like almost the first guy to ever say those things. They are deep.
being the first to say moronic crap doesn't make someone deep or profound, at best it makes them novel
>all the seethe over this post
Someone hit a nerve
>war good
That part is about the flux. Everything is being and becoming. Thus, they are in war, and war is good.
Have you read Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger on him to see what they think is insightful in him?
That's supposed to be Heraclitus? Who tf painted this, homie?
Some Christcuck
>scientifically wrong
u still think in terms of "science", but theres no such thing.