The Weeping Philosopher – Heraclitus

Why the Weeping Philosopher? – Because of humanity’s foolishness. Known by the epithet “The Obscure” due to the dual and paradoxical meanings of his writings and thoughts, Heraclitus of Ephesus (535–475 BCE) wept every time he saw people living in a despicable manner—or, more precisely, dying in such a manner. Even happy and cheerful individuals evoked pity in him.

But is there a laughing philosopher? Certainly. In a world of opposites, their absence would be impossible. Yet, more about that on later pages.

Heraclitus, who renounced governance in favor of his brother, developed a deeply negative opinion about humanity. He is credited with saying, “Dogs bark at what they do not know,” and ultimately became a misanthrope. He withdrew from society, making his home in the mountains. Misanthropy, after all, is characterized by a hatred of, distrust toward, and negative attitude about people.

The human soul is a union of fire and water said the wise philosopher. Fire represents nobility and virtue, while water signifies baseness and ingratitude. Thus, fire must triumph over water—the soul must remain “dry.”

Heraclitus believed that humans are inherently irrational. How can this be corrected? His answer: “Only through self-work, reflection, and the pursuit of knowledge.” But are humans truly irrational? Perhaps that is a rhetorical question. Indeed, it is. For example, Einstein once remarked that the universe and human stupidity are infinite. Yet, he later admitted uncertainty about the infinity of the universe. It’s hard to disagree with Einstein—not because he was Einstein, but because he was right. And because he was right, he is Einstein.

A Testament to Human Folly – in the past 55 centuries, the so-called “Homo sapiens” has waged 14,500 wars, resulting in the destruction of 3.5 billion lives—by none other than humanity itself. Endless examples of this boundless folly could be presented, but such an endeavor is unworthy of the time it would consume. Otherwise, we, too, would be adding another act of foolishness to eternity—something utterly unnecessary.

“Many do not know what they are doing; they are not truly alive. They are asleep and fail to understand what is happening around them,” says Heraclitus.

The philosopher saw himself as a pioneer of wisdom—a forerunner—and declared himself his own teacher. According to Heraclitus, a person who loves wisdom must show interest in many things. Yet, he was sharply critical of most other thinkers, claiming, the knowledge of many renowned individuals is merely opinion.

Heraclitus came to the conclusion that learning a lot does not teach one how to think. And is this not true? Undoubtedly. Throughout history, humanity has consistently confused the terms “intelligent” and “educated.” This fundamental misunderstanding remains unchanged even today.

Knowledge is an accumulation of facts—essentially, the database of information a person possesses. The level of knowledge depends on the volume of this database, making knowledge an acquired skill. In contrast, intelligence, or the capacity to think, is an innate ability that one is born with. While knowledge can be manipulated, intelligence resists such influence. Knowing a fact is knowledge, but making the right decision based on that fact is a demonstration of intelligence. As you can see, these are fundamentally different processes.

Certainly, knowledge can positively influence one’s ability to think. A richer database of information provides a more fertile ground for a thinking mind. However, a mind that lacks the capacity for critical thinking cannot acquire this ability, no matter how vast, extensive, or deep its repository of facts might be. It might be possible to teach an ape to memorize an encyclopedia, but it is unlikely to turn the ape into a Descartes. A chimpanzee that learns the alphabet might one day write “Cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). Probability theory allows for such a scenario, but it is doubtful the chimpanzee would understand what it had written.

Heraclitus authored a single book, On Nature. Unfortunately, only fragments of it have survived to our time. Like many other philosophers, Heraclitus pondered the fundamental question of philosophy: “What is the primary substance of the universe?” To this, he responded: “Fire.”

According to the philosopher from Ephesus, the universe is based on a single substance—fire. Fire is the fundamental element and the cause of existence. It is the most dynamic and transformative of all elements. Water, in Heraclitus’ view, is merely one state of fire. Fire condenses into air, air transforms into water, and water solidifies into earth. Even the earth itself was once a warm fragment of the universal fire that eventually cooled.

However, more crucial than fire is the phenomenon of change. Heraclitus’ most significant contribution to ancient Greek philosophy is his concept of constant change. Observing the flow of time and the transformation of objects, Heraclitus declared that everything is in perpetual flux—”everything flows.” It is impossible to step into the same river twice. This means that human life and society are in a state of continuous transformation.

Change, according to Heraclitus, is more fundamental than the water of Thales, the apeiron of Anaximander, or the air of Anaximenes. Even fire itself is not as fundamental as change. Why?

Imagine fire turning into water, water into earth, earth back into water, and water returning to fire, in an endless cycle. In this process, fire is the basis of water and earth, water is the basis of fire and earth, and earth is the basis of water and fire. Therefore, the driving force behind this process is not any specific substance but change itself. Change is the most primary and essential force.

Before Heraclitus, philosophy imagined the world as a vast mechanism. According to ancient philosophers, the world consisted of the sum of all objects, and the processes within it served to maintain its stability. However, Heraclitus’ idea of change rejected this concept. He argued that there is no stability or mechanism. In his view, the world itself is a grand process. As a result, all existence is in motion, and nothing remains in place. The only constant in the world is change. Period.

Heraclitus’ concept of change also encompasses the idea of struggle. This struggle occurs between opposites, which exist everywhere. Yet, according to the “Dark” philosopher, opposites bring things closer together. The struggle and conflict between opposites lead to the regeneration and flourishing of life. Thus, struggle is a natural and ordinary state.

The concept of perpetual conflict and opposites makes Heraclitus one of the founders of dialectics. Dialectics is a method of understanding the world. It involves analyzing an object or problem comprehensively and solving it based on this analysis. Simply put, it is a way of acquiring knowledge through questions and answers.

The philosopher from Ephesus elevated the notion of change from ordinary thought to the level of a philosophical idea. The principle that unites and explains everything is logos. For Heraclitus, logos is order, rule, knowledge, and truth. It is the cosmic force that governs the world. However, understanding logos is difficult for humans.

Heraclitus rejected polytheism, finding monotheism a more rational choice. For him, the divine is a single wise being capable of ruling the entire cosmos. The Ephesian sage dismissed not only polytheism but also many religious rituals as meaningless. The sole god is the cosmos itself, a singular and wise entity.

Heraclitus’ concept of change profoundly influenced ancient Greek philosophy for a long time. The wise men of his era and the philosophers of subsequent generations strove to solve the problems inherent in a constantly changing world.

Heraclitus believed that society should be governed by the best among them—a “philosopher-king.” Such a ruler should reject laws written by the masses and make decisions based on his wisdom. This ruler must rely on the laws understood from nature’s book. Society, religion, and morality should be based on natural laws. Heraclitus’ thought carries a deeper meaning than it seems. History is the work of individuals. This is something everyone should reflect upon.

“The majority are like animals; they only eat… The common people lose their minds to songs and consider the masses their teachers, failing to understand that the many are foolish, while the few are good,” says Heraclitus. “The eyes and ears of people with barbarous souls are poor witnesses.”

Thus, Heraclitus critiques human perceptual abilities.

In this way, Heraclitus, even before Socrates, thought that democracy was not an ideal system—and he was not wrong. Democracy can only be ideal in a society of the wise. In such a society, democracy might not even be necessary. More on this later.