The passing of time takes its toll on the understanding and comprehension of Ancient philosophies. But the rummage…the unconcealment of what was hidden from our eyes, the recollection of what once was – not of a «commonness» but of an essence of knowledge – always leads us to thinkers of times gone. Should one ponder whether philosophy is nothing but an eternal return to these times, one would realize that this «return» is never wholesome. As a return, it never is fully able to grasp what once was plainly put; nevertheless, it grasps change. Perhaps a misconception, there we shall envision a growing inward discontent in the «beating», as if were, of philosophy, lest we free Kronos to devour past known aspects of human understanding, reason and life.
This article is meant as a stepping stone. That there is no such thing as a finished way to understand Heraclitus, or any other member of the pre-Socratic era, it is to be proposed from such inquiries. Here, and throughout the development of such text, we will dwell into the intrinsic conditions and prepositions of such a system of knowledge that is unveiled before the reading of such philosophers. One should bear in mind that to read the pre-Socratics is to read the actuality of a transition from myth to reason. Be aware. Ancient philosophy ought to be seen differently.
Heraclitus’s taste, and distaste, with his own society led him to turn away from the very public life his peers actively engaged in. Betrayed by the patricians of his city-state, he saw life inside the political realm as the mediation of inflexible opinions. Our philosopher in question, then, decided to lead an isolated life – delivering himself into ironic thinking: distanced and prideful. He developed critical thought according to his way of life. His style was based on maxims – made in such a manner to confuse others, obliging them to stop and listen his own enigmas. He was a master of riddles and of obscurity, reflecting a rebellious condition.