Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T12:14:55.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wittgenstein and Heraclitus: Two River-Images

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

Roger A. Shiner
Affiliation:
University of Alberta

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
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, 367384Google 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. 683699.Google Scholar

4 It has been tried before; cf. Pears, D. F., ‘Universals’, Logic and Language, II, 5758Google Scholar. Pears' point is connected with mine, but distinguishable.