Philosophical inquiry begins with Heraclitus. He stands at the true beginning of philosophy because he discovered the problem that makes philosophy unavoidable. Heraclitus major accomplishment is his break with myth through the discovery of logos
the claim that reality possesses a rational order independent of custom, poetry, or divine narrative, even though most human beings live unaware of it. Born in Ephesus roughly 500 BCE Heraclitus brought philosophy into light.
By insisting that all things are in flux and that becoming, rather than stability, is the fundamental condition of existence, Heraclitus exposed the central crisis of knowledge, if everything changes, on what basis can truth endure?
Heraclitus insistence that conflict is the source of order, captured in the quote “war is the father of all things”, he does not celebrate violence but reveals that harmony itself arises from tension, a tragic insight into the structure of both nature and political life.
He believed few awaken to logos and the many live as sheep, a division that inaugurates the conflict between philosophy and the city. This aphoristic, guarded speech anticipates the tradition of esoteric writing, born from the notion, truth can be dangerous.
He viewed the world in constant change, always "becoming" but never "being". He lamented this in sayings like "Everything flows" and "No man ever steps in the same river twice
Heraclitus lasting achievement is that he posed, without solving, the questions that Plato would later confront, how is knowledge possible in a world in flux, how justice can exist amid conflict, and how wisdom can survive within political life.
And in the age of generative AI we post moderns, must again wrestle with the same questions. What is truth? And to what degree do I believe it to be true?
And we must always ask the hardest question. Why? Why did I find truth when my critics, my similarly well informed critics believe otherwise.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Human beings imitate not only behavior but desire. We want what others want. This imitation escalates into rivalry. Rivalry spreads. Crisis follows. When crisis becomes uncontrollable, societies resolve it through a scapegoat.
The community converges on a single victim. The victim is blamed for the chaos. The victim is expelled or killed. Peace returns. The victim is later mythologized as either monster or god. This pattern, lies beneath archaic religion, myth, and even early political order.
Religion, in its ancient form, is born from this violent expulsion. It sacralizes the killing that restored peace. In myth Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian, etc. The victim is guilty. The mob is portrayed as justified. Violence appears sacred. The community’s unity seems righteous.
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet it questions whether the ghost is real, or if revenge is justified. We mush ask the dangerous question… why does everyone in this world suddenly want the same thing, and why does it turn them hollow?
Hamlet is not a story about a prince frozen by thought, but a man drowning in borrowed desire. It’s about a kingdom where no one wants anything on their own anymore. A court infected by imitation, where violence spreads not because men are evil, but because they are mirrors.
Claudius is not a monster. Claudius kills the king not because he is uniquely wicked, but because he desires what his brother is. Power. Authority. Being The crown is not an object, it’s a reflection. Claudius wants to be his brother, and so he removes him.
In Crime and Punishment Dostoevsky’s Sonya is not merely a character, but the symbol of innocence in a world of blame. Human societies stabilize themselves through scapegoating, collective violence is justified by assigning guilt to a victim whose suffering restores order.
Modern societies, do not escape this, they refine it. Dostoevsky saw Sonya as his most radical answer to it. Raskolnikov’s crime is a scapegoat act. He murders a life in the name of progress & reason, repeating the ancient sacrificial logic while believing himself enlightened.
The city, the legal system, and even the reader are tempted to accept the logic, someone must suffer so others may live. Sonya exists to expose this logic as a lie. She stands outside the economy of justification altogether. A relic of transcendence
In Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky was not writing a crime novel in the modern sense. He was staging a moral experiment, almost a trial, asking a single, dangerous question… What happens if a human being believes they stands beyond moral law?
Dostoevsky is attacking the 19th century faith that human reason, detached from conscience, can replace moral truth. Raskolnikov’s crime is not merely murder, it is the attempt to think himself above humanity. Above the people around him
For Dostoevsky, reason can justify almost anything, yet the soul will not believe it. Raskolnikov discovers that guilt is not a social construct and conscience is not learned behavior. You can deny them intellectually, but you cannot escape them existentially. They are fatal
Why the Greeks? The Egyptians built for eternity and the Mesopotamians built for order, and both succeeded so completely that they froze themselves in time, a time before civilization. Stone pyramids rose to outlast memory, and clay tablets hardened law into fate.
Truth descended from gods and kings, not from argument. To question was not courage but blasphemy. These societies learned how to remember, how to obey, how to survive. What they never learned was how to revise themselves. They achieved permanence at the cost of ascent.
The Greeks arrived late and unprotected, with no rivers to guarantee harvest and no priesthood strong enough to silence doubt. What they possessed instead was a dangerous openness, a willingness to let ideas walk unarmed into the street. To argue, was to improve
Karl Popper, the man who made science falsifiable. And has been lauded as one of the smartest people ever to live. The creator metaphysics and epidemiology, believed he was rescuing the West from dogma, but in truth he rescued it only from conviction when he penned Open Societies.
He mistake the excesses of certainty for the sin of belief itself, and reducing a civilization born of moral courage into a machine for endless correction. He taught that truth must always kneel before procedure, that justice is forever provincial.
But Western liberalism was never an experiment in doubt, it was inheritance forged in blood, scripture, reason, and sacrifice, a fragile synthesis of Athens and Jerusalem that dared to claim that man possesses dignity not because it worked, but because it was true.