Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:23:00.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wittgenstein and Heraclitus: Two River-Images

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

Roger A. Shiner
Roger A. Shiner
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy , Volume 49 , Issue 188 , April 1974 , pp. 191 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am assuming here the accuracy of Geoffrey Kirk's interpretation of the river-image; cf. Heraclitus: the Cosmic Fragments, 367–384Google Scholar. This consists in rejecting fr. 4ga, as spurious, and regarding Plato and Aristotle as attributing to Heraclitus a doctrine that in fact belonged to Cratylus.

2 The verbal similarity to Heraclitus is striking. I have no information on, neither am I interested in, the historical question of whether this is conscious or unconscious.

3 For some further remarks on this notion, see Bogen, James's Wittgenstein's Philosophy of LanguageGoogle Scholar, Section III.2, and my critical notice of that book in Dialogue, 12, no. 4 (12, 1973), pp. 683–699.Google Scholar

4 It has been tried before; cf. Pears, D. F., ‘Universals’, Logic and Language, II, 57–58Google Scholar. Pears' point is connected with mine, but distinguishable.