From the Beginning to Plato

FROM THE BEGINNING TO PLATO 83
would be nonsensical or ‘pointless’ in the secular context where it would be like
bathing in mud, and the claim to have been cleansed by a human agent in that
way would be insane. Hence we shall read allo s as ‘differently’ if we see it
from the religious point of view (the purification works in a different way), and
as ‘pointlessly’ if we see it from the human point of view (the purification is no
use at all). 15 The word itself changes its significance depending on the context or
viewpoint of the reader, just as the rite of purification changes its significance
when viewed as a sacred rite, or as a secular attempt at hygiene. Heraclitus
implies that it is not insane for god to claim to cleanse us of the taint of blood that
way, though the same claim from a human would be mad.
The second part of fragment B5 is about prayer. The worshippers, we are told,
pray to the statues in a manner that is somehow analogous to talking to houses:
And they pray to these statues, as if someone, who knew nothing of what
gods or heroes are like, were to converse with the houses. 16
Once again the analogy has been taken as a reductio of religious practice.
Praying to statues, Heraclitus would be saying, is about as effective as talking to
houses.
But again it can be read another way. Notice that it is the one who does not
understand the nature of gods and heroes who talks to the houses. This implies
that if we understand what a god is we shall understand how the ritual of praying
to statues works and why it is not a matter of talking to some old stones, whether
sacred or secular. Heraclitus observes that what we do when we pray is absurd if
considered from a non-religious viewpoint: someone who had no understanding
of religion might try to achieve the same effect by talking to houses, and that
would be to miss the point. Talking to stones makes sense if you understand
about the gods, and not if you do not.
Both parts of fragment B5 can thus be taken to suggest that the meaning of
religious rites is given by their religious context and cannot be judged on the
logic of everyday secular practices. The same actions are either sense or
nonsense depending on whether they are sacred or secular. This kind of
observation about the contextual dependence of significance is familiar in many
other Heraclitean sayings: 17 sea water is pure for fish and impure for humans; 18
the road up and the road down is one and the same; 19 the actions of cutting,
burning and inflicting pain are good when performed in a case of surgery, and
bad in a case of torture. 20
In fragment B5 the one who does not understand what gods and heroes are
will try to converse with stones. Conversation is, of course, part of the human
way of life, and we know exactly what will be involved in making a successful
job of it. One prerequisite will be that the conversation takes place with another
living human person, and not a stone wall or an empty dwelling. Similarly
washing is part of the human way of life, and it is essential that we wash away
the dirt with something other than the very dirt we are removing. The parallels