The World and Language Must be Interpreted
An Introduction to Heraclitus’ Philosophy of Language
Do you know where the word ‘philosophy’ comes from?
The first known use of the word in a way we know it today was by Heraclitus (c. 500 BC) when he said,
“those who are lovers of wisdom (philosophos) must be inquirers into many things” (DK22B35)
Thus, Heraclitus and others (e.g. Parmenides, Thales, and Anaximander) are considered the first philosophers, as they were the first to distinguish themselves from other intellectuals of the time. They have also earned the name “pre-Socratic philosophers” because they predated Socrates.
Despite being some of the earliest of philosophers, their work remains highly influential to this day. For example, their views and arguments had an enormous impact on both Nietzsche and Heidegger in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
In this article, I consider one of the earliest philosophers in the Western tradition, Heraclitus, and his views on language. In doing so, I hope to show how deep discussions of language are not limited to modern philosophy but have been at the foundation of philosophy since its conception
Molding Language
To understand Heraclitus’ view of language, it is important to start with an understanding of his view of epistemology (i.e. the study of knowledge).
Heraclitus’ approach to understanding the world is empirical, as he relies heavily on (empirical) observation in order to determine which things exist. However, it is not the case that one can simply observe the world and construct a proper ontology. Heraclitus makes this clear in Fragment 1, saying,
Although this account holds forever, men ever fail to comprehend both before hearing it and once they have heard. Although all things come to pass in accordance with this account, men are like the untried when they try such words and works as I set forth, distinguishing each according to its nature and telling how it is. But other men are oblivious of what they do awake, just as they are forgetful of what they do asleep. (Fr. 1, Sextus adv. math. VII, 132)
Here, Heraclitus describes how most humans are mistaken in their understanding of the world. He says that there is an ‘account’ (logos) which is at the center of all things for all time. Yet people, even those who try, fail to realize this important fact. This is not to say, however, that they are unable to go about their daily lives. Heraclitus says, “they are oblivious of what they do when awake;” that is they live their lives, but that they are unaware of what it is that they are actually doing.
Thus, for Heraclitus, people can have two types of understanding of the world, an incorrect and a correct one. The first (incorrect view) is taking the world as it appears to us. Heraclitus argues that this allows for many to ‘sleepwalk’ through life and is based on a false understanding of the world. In Fragment 2, Heraclitus says such people have a “private understanding” as it is how they alone view the world. This is problematic since such a view cannot be shared with others (i.e. cannot be verified).
The second possible ontological framework proposed by Heraclitus, and the one he himself took up, consists of a framework that is “common to all.” Under this view, the nature of the world is accessible to everyone in that it can be observed directly and verified through public discussion. It is this view that Heraclitus calls the correct view of reality.
The question, then, is how language fits into such a view.
Looking again at Fragment 1, one can see that language plays a role in these two ontological frameworks. While there is the fact that Heraclitus is playing on the double meaning of the Greek word logos meaning both “account” and “actual words” or “language,” there is also the idea that those who follow a ‘private understanding’ are unable to understand Heraclitus’ argument. This is because they are used to talking in a different manner, literally using different words and phrases, making communication difficult.
Language, then, mirrors the duality of understanding. As there can be a proper and improper use of the understanding, language can be used properly or improperly. To put it another way, language is capable of having an apparent meaning and a proper meaning. It is important before moving any further along to understand how these two different understandings and uses of language come about.
According to Heraclitus, the process of coming to an understanding of the world, and thus of language, consists of three major steps. One observes the world as it is, and from the world, one gets one’s first insight into the universal account. It is important to note here that Heraclitus has no problem with claiming that we experience objective reality directly. David Wiggins puts it well in saying,
when we ask how the logos of the world can be grasped by the soul, we must remember that the soul itself is not for Heraclitus something that is alien to reality; it is all of a piece with what it seeks to interpret. (David Wiggins, “Heraclitus’ conceptions of flux, fire, and material persistence,” 29.)
Yet, grasping the logos of the world does not guarantee understanding it correctly. While the logos of the world is perceivable, it is also concealed. Heraclitus says that the logos of the world is given in signs, just as the oracle at Delphi speaks in a way that does not directly state anything yet does not conceal the truth either.
In Heraclitus’ view, this second step is the key place where most people could go astray. Most do not interpret the signs they see correctly; thus, they form an incorrect understanding of the world and fail to see where the ‘signs’ are pointing. Their misunderstanding is continued in that they establish a habitual life around their misunderstanding, acting as if the world was the way they think it is.
Language contributes to this ‘sleepwalking’ by codifying in linguistic practices an improper interpretation of the world. The very words that are used and the sentences that are taken to have meaning misrepresent the world as it actually is. As Wiggins says about the ‘sleepwalkers,’
For so long as they use their language only by habit, bad testimony is all that they will ever be able to get. (David Wiggins, “Heraclitus’ conceptions of flux, fire, and material persistence,” 31.)
This is especially problematic for Heraclitus since this prevents those with an improper understanding of the world from even being able to understand his attempts to correct their misinterpretation. Heraclitus claims that,
“men ever fail to comprehend both before hearing it and once they have heard.” (Fr. 1, Sextus adv. math. VII, my emphasis.)
The question now is if language is part of the problem, how can it be redeemed and adequately represent the world.
The key lies in the fact that Heraclitus believes that there is an improper and proper interpretation of the logos and use of language. While most incorrectly interpret what they see, Heraclitus sees himself at least as properly interpreting the logos and thus believes he is capable of properly using language to represent the world. It is then not impossible to interpret the logos and use language correctly as, while few in number, people who are able to use language properly.
This can be seen in how Heraclitus speaks of those who do not correctly interpret the logos. He considers that,
“not comprehending, they hear like the deaf. The saying is their witness: absent while present.” (Fr. 34 Clement, Stromateis V.115.3)
To hear like the deaf is to fail to use a faculty properly. That is, a natural faculty is not working properly in those who are unable to hear (i.e. hearing). Misinterpretation is no different. As Wiggins pointed out in the quote earlier, one is a part of what one is interpreting and thus there is no reason why one must misinterpret the logos and by extension misuse language. One only does so when one does not properly use their faculties.
There is then a proper use of language, just as there is a proper interpretation of the logos of the world. But what exactly is the proper use of language? Unfortunately, Heraclitus does not really say anything about it.
One can infer that Heraclitus’ use of language is proper in so much as he considers what he has said to be able to lead some to a proper understanding of the logos. Language, at least Heraclitus’, must be interpreted as well. Edward Hussey says that:
Heraclitus wishes to use language to ‘show how [each thing] is.’ For this reason, language properly used is cryptic to the uninitiated, just as sense-experience is. (Edward Hussey, “Epistemology and meaning in Heraclitus,” 56.)
In discussing interpretation, Heraclitus largely focuses on the idea that there is something common to all things, the logos. In order to properly interpret the world, one must take into account the fact that there is a universal logos, one that is both a part of and a driving force behind all things.
In a way, Heraclitus is advocating an early form of the scientific method. One cannot simply stop at observing the world, but must go on and compare what one observes with what others observe and with what has already been established, by such a method as being real. Only then can one make a claim about what is. From there one is able to properly use language to speak of the actual world.
Thus, language, while being a part of the problem of misunderstanding, is necessarily connected to the world. This is precisely why language is part of the problem for Heraclitus. Just as the soul is part of what it seeks to understand, language is also part of the unified logos of the world. Since language adheres to and is a part of the logos, it is then no surprise that language is able to speak about the logos. The result is that language has a necessary connection to the world in that there is a natural and correct way of talking as a result of the world being the way that it is.
The Power of Language
To use the classic Pre-Socratic notion of opposites, Heraclitus seeks to unify the traditional opposites (day and night, life and death, light and darkness, etc.) into a harmonious unity under the logos.
The result is that, for Heraclitus, language is an organic thing. It is both the expression of the active world as well as a result of the human discourse about the experience of the world. Language, as one of the possible translations for logos, can then be seen as the thing that unifies the world in that it is the thing that is common to all: the desire for expression, verbal or otherwise. Wiggins says that Heraclitus is,
A thinker best seen as relying on the language itself (not on a philosophy of logic or language or some theory of names or reference or predication) to fix the meaning of what he says. (Wiggins, “Heraclitus’ conceptions of flux, fire, and material persistence,” 28)
For Heraclitus there is nothing inherently special about language properly used. Language properly used does not seem to be far off from the language of the common person. Speaking everyday language is in fact vital if one is to come to a proper understanding of the world. It is through discourse and seeking what unifies all that one is able to arrive at both a proper understanding of the world and a proper use of language. Language is molded onto the world in such a way to properly represent what the world is really like.
It is then possible for Heraclitus to have different possible proper interpretations. Proper language is in harmony with the expression of the logos in the universe, and Heraclitus does not claim that the logos cannot express itself in various ways. In addition, language for Heraclitus must adhere to the ‘common,’ but what is ‘common’ is a result of a proto-scientific investigation based on the shared and verified experience of a number of people. This allows for a change to develop over time in the use of language as humanity develops an ever-increasing and coherent understanding of the world.
Modern Implications
It is worth pointing out that Heraclitus believes that language one refers to the actual world. As Charles Kahn notes:
The Logos can be his meaning only in the objective sense: the structure which his words intend or point at, which is the structure of the world itself (and not the intentional structure of his thought about the world). (Charles H. Kahn, The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, 98)
This is the necessary connection between language and the world. While language can also reveal something about what the user thinks is true about the world, Heraclitus calls for a proper use of language shows that the primary task of language is to posit facts about the actual world. On the surface, this does not seem like a significant claim. However, it is significant once one realizes what such a view does not entail.
Heraclitus’ view has not gone unchallenged in current debates in the philosophy of language. Philosophers such as W.V.O. Quine and Donald Davidson have argued for various negative accounts of reference, that is that language is not able to refer to the world.
Quine argues that it is impossible to give an account of reference since all sense data is undetermined resulting in the inability to precisely indicate what it is that a word refers to. Davidson collapses reference into truth by saying that language is unable to refer to anything. All we do, as language users, is accept sentences to be true or not; there is no matter of fact.
Conclusion
In the above, I have tried to make it clear that Heraclitus has a robust philosophy of language, one that is necessarily tied to the ontology of the world. In other words, Heraclitus sees a connection between how one uses language and the worldview that one holds, that is what one thinks exists and is important, though the nature of the connection is very different.
The idea that language has such a strong connection to reality is not something that is taken for granted. Heraclitus and Parmenides present evidence and arguments that are relevant in the debate over the connection between reality and language, and between the world and words. More importantly however, what I have hoped to show in exploring Heraclitus’ discussion of language is that he is doing philosophy of language.
Often, Pre-Socratic philosophers are not seen as having anything to contribute to current philosophical discussions. Under this view, while they give important insight into the early days of Western philosophy, their arguments contain only rudimentary thoughts, thoughts from which philosophy has since moved on. However, at least with regard to the philosophy of language, this is far from true.
In order to claim a necessary connection of some kind between language and reality, Heraclitus considers aspects of language that are part of the modern analytic debate on language.
Thus, contrary to what many have argued, the current philosophy of language is not something confined to modern analytic philosophy, which started in the 18th or 19th century. It has been examined alongside other questions of metaphysics and epistemology since the earliest days of philosophy.
Language was not something that was ignored or marginalized in some of the earliest philosophical discussions of the nature of the universe. Rather, it was often at the center, playing a vital role in their understanding of the cosmos and humanity’s relationship to it.
References
Kahn, Charles H. The Art and Thought of Heraclitus: An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Hussey, Edward. “Epistemology and meaning in Heraclitus.” In Language and Logos: Studies in Ancient Greek Philosophy Presented to G. E. L. Owen. Edited by Malcolm Schofield and Martha Craven Nussbaum. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. New York, Simon and Schuster, 2007.
Wiggins, David. “Heraclitus’ conceptions of flux, fire, and material persistence.” In Language and Logos: Studies in Ancient Greek Philosophy Presented to G. E. L. Owen. Edited by Malcolm Schofield and Martha Craven Nussbaum. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982.