The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

234proelu is ro be expecied and nakes very fioe sense. 1o credit it lrith anyspecial meanitlg lnstead of or in addition !o the usual one that lggq hadln such proeEs is lo go far beyond lhe evldence.As a third r€ason for rejecting the logos-docltine we night notetha! untll the tjme of the Stolcs, thisrdoctrioerls not nentloned.Plato,Aristotle, and Theophrastus do not eveo hint at such a thing (for thatEaltei, Cicero, too, is silen!), ald Plalois and Aristotlere silence is ral1 Ehe oore neaningful glven lhelr avowed inlerest 1n cosnic prlnclplesof reasod. Cf. P1ato, ?haedo 97b; Aristotle, Meta.A.1:984b15-8; aod ProcLus,jLllq.1,2(Dtehl) all of whoDe praise Anaxagoras' concept of Noussince a! lhat Li-De t1o one else hsd nade use of such a prlnclple (so ll.conperz,94-5;oseas, i fnlerpreta lion'r, 15 6; Surig,206),These lhen aie the oain arBuments agalnst the loBos-doclrlne lnll. Let us no,r lel the other slde of lhe debate be heald and exaninethe arguoents for thj.s lheory.ArguEents for the logos-docrrln€The argurenis .ln favor of the logos-doctline are usually dralrnfro|tr conslderatlons concernlng the Stolcs, the later doxography, or lhefEr. theoselves. lle s{ll exanlne each of these in turn,ratd tbat the divine, cosluic Logos of theStolcs nust have had itsroots ln H. since lhey seened !o have had a highoplnion of his vier,rs. CerlainLy no ooe would deny ihat it lras lhe Stoics'hsbir to adopl or "acconrnodate" the views of earlierphilosophers s6 theiown(cf. Burnet,l42 n,5). Also, it is reported thaE a! least three SEoicphllosophers urote co!fioentaries on E, (a11 lost), and this fact does indicalea nore ihaa casual interesE in the Epheslan and oay e)'Tlain uhy adunber of Stoic beliefs do resenhle sone aspecis of Heraclitusr views-