THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

HERACLITUS AND THE SURVIVABILITY OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH

By

Nathan D. March

Dr. Druart

PHIL 354 History of Ancient Philosophy

25 October 2002

The Pre-Socratic Greek metaphysician Heraclitus, often called “the Obscure”, introduced a unique philosophical system which addressed the difficulty of observing the phenomenon of the many without the contradiction of also observing the one. He regarded the tension between opposites as the justification for a unique cosmological view of flux and change subject to a rational logoV.  All things, including the human soul, were constituted from fire and resolved into fire in accord with the divine account.[1]  Varied interpretations of his theories have resulted from the difficult to grasp style of his writing and the limited number of surviving fragments often presented in doxographies.  The two articles presented in this paper offer contrasting interpretations of his doctrine of the soul (yuch) specifically relating to its survivability following death.  The article [Kirk, G.S. “Heraclitus and Death in Battle (FR. 24D).” The American Journal of Philology 70, no. 4 (1949): 384-393.] presents an argument for the survivability of the soul regarding fragment twenty-four.  In contrast the article [Nussbaum, Martha A. “YUCH in Heraclitus, II.” Phronesis 17 (1972):153-169.] argues for the denial of posthumonous survival.

Nussbaum’s article submits the views of Heraclitus as a “radical and profoundly creative critique of traditional ideas about man’s faculties…and his death.”[2]  She utilizes fragment 36 to contrast Heraclitus’ cosmic view and the traditional notions characterized by Homer.  She examines the problematic relationship between Heraclitus’ cosmic and ethical views in regards to the distinction between souls and the allowance for individual identity. Her conclusion is that Heraclitus’ doctrine of the soul sees death as necessary, denies the survival of the soul, and yet provides for an immortality of the soul based on fame and honor.[3]

The article begins with fragment 36, “For the soul it is death to become water.”[4] The radical distinction between Homer and Heraclitus is that the yuch, being the fiery faculty of the logoV, can be damaged.[5]  For Homer death was something that came to the individual, not the soul, and resulted in the separation from the body such that the soul took up residence in Hades while the body remained as a corpse.[6]  The individual’s autoV, the sense of himself, was retained in the corpse.[7]  For Heraclitus, she argues, death comes to the soul, is the result of damage to the soul, and in turn destroys or terminates the soul. “In the case of yuch … the replacement by water cannot mean separation of yuch for existence in Hades; it must mean the end of the existence of that particular bit of ‘fire.’”[8]  In this respect, the soul as the “fire-element” of man, establishes man as a microcosm of the entire cosmic process.[9]

She interprets fragment 98, that “souls smell things in Hades,”[10] as irony, mocking “the absurdity of the typical conception of a world of shades.”[11] She claims Heraclitus is “declaring the popular picture to be self-contradictory,” since yuch means breath, and to say breath smells is illogical.[12] The notion of the destruction of the soul is even more radical when fragment 96, “corpses should be thrown out more readily than the dung,”[13] is considered.  She presents fragment 27, “there await men when they die things they neither expect nor even think of,”[14] as a sort of riddle whose answer, considering the denial of the worth of the corpse, and the destructibility of the soul, is perhaps “Nothing”.[15]

Previously in the article Nussbaum discusses the problematic nature of reconciling qualitatively and quantitatively the microcosmic view with the ethical view of the soul presented in other fragments.[16] She discusses the parallel between pleasure and death as presented in fragment 77, “For souls it is pleasure or death to become moist, and that for them the fall into mortal life is pleasure,”[17] and the arguments for a temperate life presented in fragments 116,117,and 118.[18]  In her estimation these fragments suggest, although the soul is not immortal nor is the corpse of value, that individual life has significance.[19]  Using fragment 29, she presents the idea of “the ever-flowing fame” as a kind of kinetic immortality.[20]  In relation to fragment 24, “Gods and men honor those slain in battle,”[21] she suggests that this kinetic immortality of man is a type of immortality not available to the static gods and therefore is honored by them.[22]

Finally to address the resurrection in fragment 63, “there they are said to rise up and to become wakeful guardians of the living and the dead,”[23] as a possible objection Nussbaum considers the probability of the fragment being altered by Hippolytus to resemble the Christian notion of resurrection.[24]  Seeing no evidence to support the idea of a resurrection she suggests rather “it is possible to regard the passage as descriptive, metaphorically, of the effect of kleoV(fame) and the example of the dead upon the man who is actually living, and living wakefully enough to be cognizant of their fame.”[25]

Kirk’s article is an attempt to establish a new interpretation of fragment 24.  He states, “Heraclitus is not on this occasion simply re-echoing a popular sentiment, but intends to emphasize the suddenness rather than the seemliness of death in battle.”[26] He establishes this distinction between death in battle and death in sickness from a Heraclitean quotation preserved by Clement and through a similar quotation that concerns the purity of the souls slain in battle.[27]  Kirk’s contention is that Heraclitus held a view of the soul as existing after death in another form. Death is not the termination of existence but the transformation provided for by the cosmic change.[28]  He proposes that the purity of the soul at death determines the state of the soul following death.

The first four pages of his article concern the authenticity of the two fragments attributed to Heraclitus.  Clement sets up the contrast between death in sickness and death in battle but attributes it to “the ancients” not specifically Heraclitus.[29] The quote concerning the purity of the soul slain in battle, although referenced to Heraclitus is written in a hexameter form more consistent with Byzantine or Stoic scholars than the Ionic prose of the philosopher.[30]  Kirk goes through extreme pains to establish both fragments as original Heraclitean thoughts.

With regards to the survivability of the soul after death he says, “it is tempting to assume that on the death of the body the soul always undergoes its own ‘death’ of becoming water; but having become water it is no longer a soul.”[31] He then proposes that, “in some fragments of Heraclitus [he] definitely assumes a continued existence.”[32]  For Kirk the key issue is the interpretation of the word, qanatoV, not as death in the sense Nussbaum considered, but as the “Heraclitean meaning of change from one basic form of matter to another.”[33] He interprets fragment 98 not as irony but as associating smell with dryness and connected to dry exhalation.[34]    Souls exist in Hades, which is a “realm of fire,”[35] and they can smell “because they are surrounded by dry matter.”[36] He rejects the possibility of the survival of the individual soul according to his definition of qanatoV.[37] He sees death in fragment 36 as non-inclusive and suggests that virtuous souls remain fiery and do not suffer the death of becoming water.[38]

The composition of the soul at the moment of death is the primary factor that determines if the soul becomes water or remains fiery.[39] He deduces that “if the amount of water at the moment of death exceeds the amount of fire, presumably the soul as whole suffers the ‘death’ of turning to water: but if the soul is predominantly ‘dry’, then it escapes the ‘death’ of becoming water and joins the world-mass of fire.”[40] The distinction between souls slain in battle and due to sickness rests on the idea that “the soul in sickness longs to live on and is weighed down by desires for life,”[41] and is necessarily moist.[42]  However, the soul slain in battle is more detached from the world, fiery and therefore pure. He remarks that it “is better to die in battle … because it tends to increase the fire in the soul.”[43]

In my opinion Nussbaum’s article offers a more compelling and comprehensive interpretation of Heraclitus’ view of the survivability of the soul.  She clearly establishes her position in contrast with the Homeric tradition.  She is able to demonstrate her position using a large variety of known and credible fragments. She shows familiarity with, and appears to remain faithful to, the Greek text. Kirk, on the other hand, makes an interesting point concerning the suddenness of death, but fails to offer a compelling argument in favor of the continued existence of the soul.  His article relies heavily on questionable sources and indirect quotation.  His arguments hinge on the specific definition of the word qanatoV.  Additionally, the use of relevant fragments is limited and interpreted in light of questionable sources. His assertions are based on what is “possible” or “permissible”[44] and rely on “deduction”[45] of facts.  My opinion is that his claim that his interpretation of “the fragment can be fitted as a positive contribution into a fairly consistent doctrine of the soul”[46] is weak.