The Theology of Heraclitus: a Presocratic Pantheism

86and ra!. But when ne use the separate categories of ijusttandrunJustr,ne fail to realize the truth thar 1s all arounilus. The[ \^re ale herely hunan; but when we know that just aDdunjust are one and that oneness itself is good and fair andjust, then we a!e pal.takLng in the alivine way of seeing things.god" ln a speclal way, What I take these rords !o mean Lsthat there ls a special divine node of being, or qray ofv!ew1lrg !ea].lty and acting ln accordance wlth it. Yet suchan lnterpre!ation cannot be ron rvithout a fight, especlallysince lhe p!esence of the article with theos and the contrastlrlth hutllans nighL be taken as evidence that the rnos! na!ura1and 11tera1 under6tandlng of ho theos here would be to takethem as referrlng to 6one one divine erlti!y, presunably endoiredwi!h some sort of consclousness. Howeve!, such an lnterpretationis not !tiEhout lts own problerrl6. For lf lheos heres!ands fo! sone si.ngle divlne en!ity (equated in the literaturenith a rarifled Fire, s denythologized Zeus, a reifiedLogos, etc. ), then the saylng is a clear statement of the ra-dical difference between hurnafls and sod. In ihat case hunransdo not and cannot have true knowledge, and once agaln we areHence the so-ca11ed god-nan anttthesis turns out to bea goal-tlan continuurn. The diffe!ellce between the !!ro is tntern6 of anount of gnona, Such knowledge is !'.'1thllt thehuEan grasp, and so man a6cends the scatre to divine knowledgethe tnore he ettalns the risdon that H. 1s solennly proclalt[ing.lil) the neantns of t6 9e61. The above in!erpreta!1onof ft.l02 obvlously understands rhe words !ranslated asrrfor