Pre-Socratic Philosophers: Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Socrates
Heraclitus
Heraclitus accepted the validity of the senses as a starting point but argued that true reality is only accessible to reason, specifically through knowledge of nature. He stated, “Nature is pleased to hide.” The senses show that everything in nature is in motion, constantly becoming; “everything is continuously flowing (panta rei)” like a river, everything is turned off and on like a continuous fire.
But only reason shows us why everything is constantly changing. Reason reveals that the permanent change of nature is caused by the contradictory structure of all reality. In all things, there is a unity of opposites in continual struggle: God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, satiety and hunger. Contradiction and discord are at the origin of all things: “War is the father and king of all things.” We should know that war is common to all, justice is strife, and all things come to be through discord and necessity. Nature is dialectical. This idea of the dialectical structure of reality would be revived in the 19th century by Hegel and Marx.
Reason also explains why, despite apparent disorder, there is an inflexible order to change. The struggle of opposites is subject to a universal law, the Logos (which we interpret as ratio or proportion). The Logos governs all movement of reality, leading to harmony and uniting the opposites. This leads to the assertion of the ultimate unity of all reality: “They do not understand how what differs with itself is in agreement: harmony consists of opposing tension, like that of the bow and the lyre.”
Parmenides
In contrast to Heraclitus, who initially accepted sensory knowledge, Parmenides claimed that reason is the only way to reach true reality. He suggests that true reality exists beyond what we perceive through the senses; it *is* being. For Parmenides, the demands of reason force us to admit as true only what is immutable. Therefore, there is no room for change or movement, and hence, no validity to perceptual knowledge, which shows us that change. Only entities that are permanent, absolute, and immutable can and should be sought.
The path taken is to adhere strictly to logic, starting from the principle of identity: what *is*, is; what *is not*, is not, and cannot even be thought. Only discourse that refers to what *is* is correct, and it is accessed by reason. Discourse on specific objects that we see changing only shows us appearance, which does not allow us to reach the truth. The only true reality is the Self, which is one, eternal, and undivided.
The Socratic Method
Socrates liked to say he had inherited his profession from his mother, a midwife. He helped men “give birth” to knowledge. This implies a particular understanding of knowledge, the role of education, and the means to access the truth. Education is not about imposing models or standards. Truth resides within each individual and must be discovered. From the outside, one can only help another discover the truth they already possess. This is the essence of “midwifery,” or “maieutics.”
The maieutic, or Socratic method, consists of two stages:
- The Negative/Destructive Stage: Socrates believed ignorance is the worst evil. To escape it, one must first acknowledge their ignorance. This stage involves putting the listener in a position to recognize their ignorance, prompting them to search for what they do not know and accept help.
- The Positive/Constructive Stage: The midwife does not have a child to give, but helps the mother give birth. Similarly, Socrates did not possess a pre-built science to give to the disciple. He only helped the student discover the truth already within their inner consciousness, to clarify their own understanding.
In the Platonic dialogues, Socrates often gets his interlocutors into trouble, especially those who were most confident in their supposed knowledge. Through skillful questioning, he would convince them to accept statements that, upon closer examination, led to conflict and deadlock. This is the negative part of the method, which Socrates called “eristic.” It is here that Socrates employs his famous irony, often annoying his partner but always leading to confusion and a recognition of ignorance.