Editing Heraclitus (section)

==== Analytic ====
The British [[process philosophy|process philosopher]] [[Alfred North Whitehead|A. N. Whitehead]] has been identified as a representative of the tradition of Heraclitus.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://philarchive.org/archive/SHAWPM|title=Whitehead's Process Metaphysics as a New Link between Science and Metaphysics|page=244|author=Nelson Shang}}</ref><ref>Rescher, N. (1996). Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. United States: State University of New York Press. p. 1</ref><ref>Lowe, V. (2020). Alfred North Whitehead: The Man and His Work. United States: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 137</ref> In [[Bertrand Russell]]'s essay ''Mysticism and Logic'', he contends Heraclitus proves himself a metaphysician by his blending of mystical and scientific impulses.<ref name=mystic>''[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mysticism_and_Logic_and_Other_Essays Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays]'', by Bertrand Russell, pp. 1–3</ref>

===== Wittgenstein =====
Scholar Edward Hussey sees parallels between Heraclitus, the ''logos'', and the early [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]'s linguistic philosophy in the ''[[Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus|Tractatus]]'' (1922).{{sfn|Hussey|1972|page=59}} Wittgenstein was known to read Plato<ref>Kienzler, W. (2013). "Wittgenstein Reads Plato". In: Perissinotto, L., Cámara, B.R. (eds) ''Wittgenstein and Plato''. Palgrave Macmillan, London. {{doi|10.1057/9781137313447_2}}</ref> and in his return to philosophy in 1929 he made several remarks resembling those of Heraclitus: "The fundamental thing expressed grammatically: What about the sentence: One cannot step into the same river twice?"<ref>Zettel, Wittgenstein, #459</ref> He then seemed to make a dramatic shift by 1931, saying one can step twice into the same river.<ref>Stern, David G. (1991). Heraclitus' and Wittgenstein's River Images: Stepping Twice into the Same River. The Monist 74 (4):579–604.</ref>

Wittgenstein also uses a river image in ''[[On Certainty]]'' (1950) to say even the river-bed may change as foundational logical principles might: "The mythology may change back into a state of flux, the river-bed of thoughts may shift&nbsp;... And the bank of that river consists partly of hard rock, subject to no alteration or only to an imperceptible one, partly of sand, which now in one place now in another gets washed away or deposited."<ref>Wittgenstein, L. (1972). On Certainty. United Kingdom: HarperCollins. 97, 99</ref><ref>Shiner, Roger. (1974). Wittgenstein and Heraclitus: Two River-Images. ''Philosophy''. 49. 191–197. {{doi|10.1017/S0031819100048063}}.</ref>

===== Contradiction =====
[[File:Buddhism & Science - Interview with Graham Priest (cropped).png|140px|thumb|Graham Priest is a dialetheist.]]
Aristotle's arguments for the law of non-contradiction, which he saw as refuting the position started by Heraclitus,<ref>Priest, G., Sylvan, R., Norman, J., Arruda, A. I. (1989). Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent. Austria: Philosophia. p .5</ref> used to be considered authoritative, but have been in doubt ever since their criticism by Polish logician [[Jan Łukasiewicz]], and the invention of [[Many-valued logic|many-valued]] and [[Paraconsistent logic|paraconsistent]] logics.<ref>Lukasiewicz, Jan & Wedin, Vernon (1971). On the Principle of Contradiction in Aristotle. Review of Metaphysics 24 (3):485–509.</ref><ref>Karabey, R. (2019). Back to The Contradictions: Łukasiewicz's Objection. Archives of Philosophy, 0(51), 139–151. {{doi|10.26650/arcp2019-5109}}</ref>

Some philosophers such as [[Graham Priest]] and [[Jc Beall]] follow Heraclitus in advocating true contradictions or dialetheism,<ref name=dliar>Priest, Graham, 'Aristotle on the Law of Non-Contradiction', Doubt Truth to be a Liar (Oxford, 2005; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 May 2006), https://doi.org/10.1093/0199263280.003.0002,</ref> seeing it as the most natural response to the [[liar paradox]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/|title=Dialetheism|first1=Graham|last1=Priest|first2=Francesco|last2=Berto|first3=Zach|last3=Weber|editor-first1=Edward N.|editor-last1=Zalta|editor-first2=Uri|editor-last2=Nodelman|date=May 20, 2024|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|via=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref><ref>Priest, Graham. "Contradiction, Belief and Rationality." ''Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society'', vol. 86, 1985, pp. 99–116. {{JSTOR|4545039}}. Accessed 30 May 2024.</ref>{{sfn|PriestBeall|2004|p=23}}{{Notetag|Priest agrees with Hegel's contradictory account of motion, based on [[Zeno of Elea]]'s Paradox of the Arrow, which is arguably Heraclitus's account of flux.<ref name="Priest">Priest, Graham. "Inconsistencies in Motion." ''American Philosophical Quarterly'' 22, no. 4 (1985): 339–46. {{JSTOR|20014114}}.</ref> On this account of motion, to move is to be both here and not here.<ref name="Priest" />}} Jc Beall, together with [[Greg Restall]], is a pioneer of a widely discussed version of [[logical pluralism]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Logical Pluralism|url=https://global.oup.com/academic/product/logical-pluralism-9780199288410?cc=us&lang=en&|access-date=February 5, 2017|publisher=global.oup.com}}</ref>

===== Philosophy of Religion =====
Beall argues for a contradictory account of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] as both man and divine.<ref>Beall, Jc; Pawl, Timothy; McCall, Thomas; Cotnoir, A. J. & Uckelman, Sara L. (2019). Complete Symposium on Jc Beall's Christ – A Contradiction: A Defense of Contradictory Christology. Journal of Analytic Theology 7 (1):400–577.</ref> The philosopher [[Peter Geach]] was inspired by Heraclitus's comments on the river to formulate his idea of [[sortal|relative identity]],<ref>Cartwright, Helen Morris. "Heraclitus and the Bath Water." ''The Philosophical Review'' 74, no. 4 (1965): 466–485. {{doi|10.2307/2183124}}.</ref><ref>Instantiation, Identity and Constitution, by E. J. Lowe, ''Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition'', Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jul. 1983), pp. 45–59</ref> which he used to defend the coherence of the [[Trinity]].<ref>P. T. Geach, Reference and Generality, pp. 150–151</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Relative Identity and the Doctrine of the Trinity|author=Michael Rea|journal=Philosophia Christi|volume=5|number=2|year=2003}}</ref>

===== Philosophy of Time =====
[[File:English Grammar Time Simple Present.png|thumb|Presentism is seen as a Heraclitean view.|200x200px]]
The [[British idealism|British idealist]] [[J. M. E. McTaggart]] is best known for his paper "[[The Unreality of Time]]" (1908), in which he argues that time is unreal.  What he calls the "[[A series and B series#A series|A theory]]", also known as "temporal becoming", and closely related to [[Philosophical presentism|presentism]], which conceptualizes of time as tensed (i.e., having the properties of being past, present, or future), is a view which has been seen as beginning with Heraclitus.<ref>Craig, W. (2013). The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination. Germany: Springer Netherlands. p. 218</ref><ref>Craig, William Lane (1999). Temporal Becoming and the Direction of Time. Philosophy and Theology 11 (2):349–366.</ref><ref>Reichenbach, H. (2012). The Direction of Time. United States: Dover Publications. pp. 6–8</ref> By contrast, his " "[[B-theory of time|B theory]]", under which time is tenseless (i.e., earlier than, simultaneous to, or later than), has similarly been seen as beginning with Parmenides.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Markosian|first1=Ned|author-link=Ned Markosian|title=Time|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PreEteGroUniThe|access-date=28 December 2014|publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Steven Savett|title=Being and Becoming in Modern Physics|date=2021|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome|publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>{{sfn|BardonDyke2015|pp=1–29}}