The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

tlng a pair, artd the latter neanlog credllts hin !rlth some sor!54of blzarre rrorld of'counter-th1ngsr.Such a resultEot onlyis "repugnant ... to the baslc assumptlons of o!dirlary 10gic"(Sne11, Discoverv, 219) 1t 1s also unsupported by any othertestioony or doxographlcal suppott (and the doxographe!s wodldhave loved !o report such e fect and to cornpare it to Phtlolaus'unseen counter-earth) . If lt. did subscribe to the theorythat eve::y X had an opposlte, not-X, chances are he dtd rotfollow out its conclusions to thts l.lloglcaI end. 0n the otherhand, the chances are better thet he dld not hold the theoryln the first place. There rernaln at leas! tno other posslble$ays ll. could have Justifled a be1lef that all thlngs wereopposltes. 0ne of then (b) is even 1e6s 1ike1y than thls one;the other (c) has a versi,)n of lt that is !!ost probable of all.re. b) The secorld possiblllty supposes that H. conslderedpj!13 and !g! as a pair of conlraries. If this eeretrue, then al1 things rould be opposltes by vir!ue of thefact !haE p3!l!g itself 1s an opposlte. Thls l6 tldy as faras it goes. There is eveo a certaln plaustbility lrl seelngnultiplicity and unl!y as extrenes or opposltes. Also, thehen in such a peir would share the leantng function that wehave seen characte!lzlng many other important polaritiea. !orit would have its nsrrow role as opposite to panta but alsohave a Dore genelal lole ln that it unites all the opposedterns by making therD roner. the natn problen with thls vlertis that H. mentlons !9! and !349 nithout treating then tnthis way, There can be no denying lhat the tvo are lelatedin some inportan! ways. Fr.10 says that "fron panta is !39;