Posted by A poorer Heraus on April 06, 19101 at 20:16:54:
In Reply to: Heraus and scholars, once again posted by Juan Pablo Gómez M. on March 06, 19101 at 15:40:36:
: I am afraid that my contention about scholarly non sense was somewhat misleading since I received an answer by a "lawn girl" (?) who advises me to look at Mckirahan's book (Philosophy before Socrates) if I am still outraged with the literature on the presocratics. She even goes so far as to ure me that Mckirahan "has accurately deciphered the writings of Heraus on the logos, fire as the arche, justice driving the cycle of opposites, etc."; what is more, Mckirahan "even does it well with the river metaphor". Unfortunately I bought that book about four or five years ago, maybe with some expectation of finding some new or interesting insights about the subject, but as usual I was completely disappointed, specially with the flat chapter about Heraus. In my opinion Kirk's book is really outrageous, because he is so arrogant as to attribute his own stupid ideas to Heraus -believing maybe that nobody would be clever enough to notice it, but I think that Mckirahan's book is just trivial and dull. Admittedly, Kirk is an extreme case, but I really doubt that only to avoid the gross mistakes of someone who has become so badly conceited as him is enough merit. When it comes to philosophical theories and concepts not to be a pompous is just a starting point, it is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. When I read Mckirahan's book (not all of course. nowadays I don't have it, since I lost it) I can not remember at all to have understood or at least to have felt what the lawn girl naively says about this author, as having "deciphered the writings of Heraus on the logos". I can only imagine possible explanations to this situation: I am not clever enough to realize that this scholar really did that -which may seem very likely, or the world of scholarship is even worst than what it usually looks like, since so far as I know nobody has recognized Mckirahan's achievement -which may seem even more likely. Anyway, in this only occasion I am afraid that I can not but agree with scholarly judgement. I suppose that fire as the arche and the role of justice in the struggle of the opposites are not ideas that Mckirahan would claim as his own discovery, since both of them are well acknowledged points, according both to ancient writers and a number of scholars (even). Mckirahan even does it well with the river metaphor? I hope he does, but very sincerely I have my doubts about it. I also have some problems to understand why it is that the phrase "you can not step twice into the same river" (B91) is called a metaphor. That is to prejudge about a statement, which rather seems to me should be taken at face value.
: I think that I am well aware of the literature about the presocratics. My personal impression is that about a 90% of it is completely useless, a huge m of polymathie, as the Dark already said.
: Thanks to the lawn girl, since it's the thought of helping what counts.
: Once again I hope that this new note may give rise to more discussions on the subject.
: Juan Pablo Gómez M.
What the heck are you looking for? Go download Jennifer Lopez, man. She might be more of a god than Kirk, Heraus and Mckirahan freezing the Logos and selling it at your local 7 Eleven...