Earth, Aer, and Fire

What I found most interesting about Heraclitus is how much cross cultural trade is evident in his works. While this is not necessarily the most philosophical content, it is interesting to see how ideas spread.

The theme that makes this trade so evident is his reference to apes. There are no European apes. There are not even Ionian apes. The closes primates are Saharan Africa and the tropics of Asia. While those regions could be trading closer to the Greek world, this at least demonstrates that Greeks are now including aspects of the far East in their thoughts and philosophies.

Additionally, the inclusion of a life and death cycle of the elements seems particularly influenced by the East (though it is quite possible that both organically arose in their respective domains). Taoism and Tai Chi in particular emphasize a cycle of destruction and birth with the elements, though theirs are fire, metal, wood, earth, water (in order of destruction). It is still intriguing to see the study of physics begin focussing on how elements can be transmuted.

I would be interested to know more about how much intellectual trade was being done, and how closely the various philosophies of the East and West were in chronological development. I feel like even if they are unrelated, this shows that philosophy is a natural part of humanity, and that there is some progression of ideas innate in our species. Then again, that may just be the Hegelian in me.

Xenophanes' Foreign Concepts

          The third aphorism pertaining to Xenophanes offers an insight into his ethical view that seems novel amongst early philosophers. He seems to intimate a sort of sentimentalism in claiming that the dog has the soul of a man. Either that, or he is espousing a view of reincarnation that also seems to be contrary  to the later Platonic notion (in which souls are reborn into different human lives, but do not change life forms). 

          The possibility of sentimentalism is intriguing because it seems so contrary to the general view of life in which the gods deal out joy and sorry, and assign lots as they will. If sentimentalism is present or is to hold, this would mean that a state of equality and a different sort of accountability is present. Rather than some ontological or cosmological order by which things must be judged, actions, objects, and beings are instead compared to and by an individual.

          I also have some questions:

• ·         Is Xenophanes a pantheist by the way he is described in aphorism 29?
• ·         If he is a pantheist, could his sentimentalism come from this view?
• ·         How is the soul treated or differentiated in pantheism?