The doctrine of unity of opposites lays in the centre of the debate on Heraclitus’ philosophy. The present article proposes a critical analysis of the mainstream interpretation of geometrical oppositions (fragments DK 22 B 59, B 60 and B 103) as mere examples of different points of view. Instead, we suggest that these fragments are fundamental pieces in Heraclitus cosmology and that they are traces of a circular and archaic paradigm. Indeed, cyclical formulations are spread throughout the fragme…
Read moreThe doctrine of unity of opposites lays in the centre of the debate on Heraclitus’ philosophy. The present article proposes a critical analysis of the mainstream interpretation of geometrical oppositions (fragments DK 22 B 59, B 60 and B 103) as mere examples of different points of view. Instead, we suggest that these fragments are fundamental pieces in Heraclitus cosmology and that they are traces of a circular and archaic paradigm. Indeed, cyclical formulations are spread throughout the fragments and, read in connection with geometrical oppositions, perform a useful model to describe how permanence and change can be complementary events. In this context, circularity can be a key to the comprehension of unity of opposites as a result of interchangeable processes – as day and night, life and death, beginning and end – so that opposites are part of a concrete and vital unity.
