HPhil Seminar: December 5, 2024

The HPhil (History of Philosophy) Research Group of the Centre of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon announces the 2024/25 edition of its permanent seminar on the history of philosophy, devoted to the presentation of conferences by renowned specialists while also creating opportunities to emerging scholars, aiming to promote advanced studies in groundbreaking debates and the permanent training of its academic community.

In this session of the seminar, Celso Vieira (Ruhr-Universität Bochum) will present a paper, entitled “The persistence of rivers in Heraclitus and its implications”, (abstract below)

The session will take place on December 5, 2024 at 5 p.m., in the Room C201.J (Room Mattos Romão, Department of Philosophy). Admission is free.

Abstract

With his example of the river, Heraclitus posed a puzzle of persistence that has occupied philosophers to this day. How can things change and still be the same? As usual, his text gives no clear answer. In order to find out how rivers remain the same for Heraclitus, I begin the discussion with the general statement in B84a ‘changing, it remains’. The relationship between permanence and change depends on how one reads the participle:
– Concessive: despite changing, it remains.
– Causal: because it is changing, it remains.
The fragment is too laconic to provide an answer. So I go to B12, the most accepted version of the river fragment, where the scholarly debate usually takes place. I divide the types of answers into two groups. The formalists offer higher-order aspects to ground the permanence of the river, e.g., the structure remains, but the water flows. Materialists prefer to ground persistence in physical aspects. e.g. The banks remain even though the waters change. I argue that all answers that ground persistence in a fixed element offer a concessive reading. It remains in spite of change. However, most interpreters agree that a causal reading is preferable. In search of a possible answer, I emphasize a usually neglected aspect. The people should enter the river. To understand this peculiar requirement, I go to B125, where one must stir the barley drink to understand the need of motion to constitute an integrated whole. This performative proof by interaction will shed some light on why people need to enter the river to grasp its persistence. Those who enter the river experience something that a mere observer misses and this may give an answer for what grounds the persistence of the river. As a test for generalization, I will see how the reading suits Heraclitus’ conception of a dynamic fitting-together (harmonia) that holds things together in B51.