Author(s): Mahonri Brady Corona
Mentor(s): Kirk Fitzpatrick, Sean Murphy, Gretchen Ellefson
Institution SUU
Heraclitus discusses nature in fragments B1 and B123. Other than these two fragments phusis is not discussed anywhere else in the fragments of Heraclitus. Both B1 and B123 contain linguistic features that describe phusis as a singular, hidden nature. These linguistic features are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they meaningfully inform us on Heraclitus’ understanding of nature. On the other, they severely limit any further inferences. On account of the second edge of this sword, I call these linguistic features “epistemic boundaries.” The purpose of this paper is two-fold. Firstly, to ground these epistemic boundaries. Secondly, to examine the current interpretations through said epistemic boundaries. To sustain my main claims, I will expound on what the epistemic boundaries in B1 and B123, will examine the interpretations given so far and the problems they face in the light of these epistemic boundaries. Lastly, I will draw the implications from understanding phusis as a singular, hidden nature. If interpretations cannot account for these epistemic boundaries, then they are departing from what Heraclitus actually said. As I will argue, interpreters so far have made further claims about phusis than the text warrants. Thus, the usage of epistemic boundaries will make claims of Heraclitus’ phusis more epistemically humble. As such, the importance will lie on what can be meaningfully said about phusis however small it may be. Further inferences are of no worth if they cannot be appropriately accounted for.