The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

168self-delermlnisnas Sne11; KR,2l4; Curhrie,I,482 n.1; V,48I; aodVlas!os, Plators Universe, ( S e a t t I e , I 975 ) , 22 all do.Such interpretatlon6 of !he saylng, using rhe suspecttranslation "nen's atbos ls hIs dalndn" (#3), pur rhe stresson 6thos. Dlfferen! lnterpretatlons, hooever, put rhe stresson !gi3[9, for the nost parc s!111 uslng this trans]ation.rorperhaps i!s a1!e!na!e, "roan's dafino_n ts hts e-thos'r,In theseversions !he saylng ls supposed to procfalrd that 1t is wrongto think of manrs nature (!q[gg) {n purely hunan rerns. InoEher r.rords, those who hold thls vlew say that lt. 1s asserrlngthat H. j.s not debunklng the conmon notlon of a daim6n-fate,but the (equally p!evalent) notlon that nanrs ethos 1s hisown. In varlous guises thls ls the vleqr of Verdenlus, Da!cus,and Die1s." Related !o these lnterpretarlons are those thatsuppose that Bl l9 is referrtng to sone aspect of a diviile afterlife,Iike llesiod's Bolden race of nen who dled and then becanerrVerdenius in hls Parmentdes, (Croningen,l942), p.29 said that BlIgcould nor nean that "hunan freerutll [ts] a prtnctple of behaviou!" northat dah5n could nean 'faret (29 n.3), Instead, he cl. ined thac 44!9qneant "the divine, tjre godhead" and that lhe fE. said thaE lran ras able tohearken to this divinity only because "tha! whlch Dan a