The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

1t7So far so good, but the saying goes on to say thatthls &9ltr_99 is "ever-living flre", SureIy, 1t might be a!-Sued, this equation nust speak strongly against the lnterpretationof kosxos offered thus fa!. For as Burnet once sald(!!!,f34 tr.3), "rt6uos nust mean tworld' here, not nerelyrorderr;for only tbe worfd could be indentifled irith flrer'.Whether tbis is true or not conposes the final sectlon of ourdiscus s 1on of thissaying.iii) Ever-livlng f1re. When H, says t hat thls orderln things !hat is present !o us all r" n6p de fCcuov what doeshe nean? oire thing he does not mean is thatfire1s somesort of arc:ra of all thlngs. Since Aristotlesisten!ly been understood ln li. as a type ofF{'o Lq. 6ar-Urstoff in theyllesian Eradlton, a subs:trate that perslsts through change,froo rJhich all things come and into nhlch allthl$gsresolve.Burnet, e.9., coBpared it dlrectly to Anaxlnenesr atr (145,6 n.1), bu! such an explanatlon does not bearexaninatlon even if lt be admitted that kosmosup un der close- -.7equa-Ls nor,Lo .The stress in Heracllcus' phllosophy is not on the node ofphysical chenge o! !he stuff that underlies it. These arepost- not pre-Parnenldean concerlls- Ithat H. is concerned wlth1s that flux is conslan! and everyrhere insofar as everything78s." srokes, ore & yanv,tO2-5; cherniss, AcfP'I6, 298 n'31; 380-I;McDianiid, e!. F/A, I,185-6. siokes makes a good algumen! for the likelihoodof no pre-Parnenidean phllosopher espousing an arch6-LyPe of tnonisn,the Mlresia'rs included (ibid,38-43, 58-63).the fire as substratum theory 1s far fron dead, however. Matcovichequates ',iiEhlll God (sic) and states that n. believed ln the "non-evidentthesis tha! 211 lhin3s are actually different forms of flrerr (412). So tooverdenius, ",'i's cotrcep!. of llre|, l9$g84,(esse",1975),2-3; & Barnes,r,6l.