>The sun is the size of a human foot.What did he mean by this?
>>23303219I mean try to hold your foot can cover the sun, he's right
>>23303219common sense wins again :)
>>23303219Have you ever been to the sun? Who are you to say he is wrong?That's what I thought.
>>23303219the context was completely lost
>>23303219Reality is relative to perceptual realityHe is really quite smart
>>23303219That the mind has limitations and is inherently deluded.
Heraclitus was a Zoroastrian, which was a Jewish cult, who worship fire—a symbol of Jewish people. The Sun is a symbol of Aryans. Sun against fire.
>>23304354>Zoroastrian, which was a Jewish cultHey buddy? You're a retard
>>23303219I bet he and Lao Tzu would have gotten along
>>23304385How about you just respond normally, you fucking faggot?
>>23304447>posts a lostjak
>>23303219He was a relativist
>>23304354What sort of schizo drugs did you take to think zoroastrian is not an aryan religion and that fire is not an aryan symbol?
>>23304354What grade of middle school are you in, anon? I want to have a word with your retard class teacher.
>>23304762It's very non-schizo, here it is again:>Heraclitus was a Zoroastrian, which was a Jewish cult, who worship fire—a symbol of Jewish people. The Sun is a symbol of Aryans.>Sun against fire.
>>23303219It’s a beautiful profound little aphorism (as almost all his fragments are) about some of the implications of relativism and perspectivism. However, it would be shallow to take Heraclitus as a modern breed of something like an entirely naturalistic atheistic relativist/postmodernist, because of how he offsets this with beliefs (unpopular today) such as in a Logos that orders all, and which, metaphorically, the many are “blind” or “asleep” to, each living in their own “idios kosmos”, private world (idios = private, being where the word “idiot” etymologically comes from, by the way), akin to dreamers stuck in their own private worlds, whereas awakening brings one into a common reality shared by all. ‘From the perspective of the sun itself’, or from the so-called ‘objective’ perspective (of ‘the-sun-in-itself’, the ‘noumenal sun’, if that can be taken to coherently exist), it is obviously much larger than us and our feet. Modern scientists have determined it’s close to a perfect sphere with a diameter of about 1.392 million km (from this so-called ‘objective perspective’). Yet from a distance, it can be be blocked by foliage, a tree, a hand, or a foot. Which is the ‘objective’ size of the sun? From some angles, it can seem to be about an inch in the sky. Maybe it’s closer to the horizon while setting or rising and seems to be a foot long. This is so simple it sounds shallow, but it’s the simple and overlooked things that can be most thought-provoking. We have a variant of some of the profound implications of this in the modern theories of general and special relativity, or the relativity of spacetime, where measurements of space and time can be entirely different from different observers’ perspectives, with no cosmic referee to say which measurement is the ‘objective one’, which one the correct reference-frame. There’s some similar thought in the Huayan Buddhism of the Buddhavatamsaka Sutra (Buddha’s Flower Garland Sutra) compiled around the 300s A.D., along with the Huayan philosophy of the interpenetration or interfusion of all phenomena, which interestingly enough one Huayan parable also uses the moon to describe, if I remember right. From our perspective, the moon is a little circle in the sky, whereas from the perspective of a theoretical moon-dweller, it would be a vast landscape stretching around in all directions. Both these perspectives or views of the moon exist, interpenetrate, and interfuse with each other seamlessly, such that it seems faulty to talk of an ‘objective moon as-it-is-in-itself’, or ‘noumenal moon’. (In fact, in Buddhism, to fuse it with Western philosophical terminology, it seems they would say that ‘noumenal reality is emptiness’, based on this philosophy of observer-dependent reality or idealist-like schools like the Yogachara/Mind-Only school, which many Mahayana schools like Huayan are also similar to).
>>23307120Imagine if the whole board was of this quality
>>23304354>Heraclitus was a Zoroastrian, which was a Jewish cult,lol
>>23307120But from Heraclitus’s perspective, it seems he would say the noumenal underlying nature behind everything is the Logos (Reason or Word), Logos itself being how we come to conclusions like, “The sun and moon have different sizes from different perspectives, and this relativity of perception seems to apply to most everything.” So, interestingly enough, this realization of subjectivity, of relativism, of perspectivism, itself gives access to something like an ‘objective’ view — an ‘objective view’ that such relativity of perception seems to be a feature of consciousness and of the universe. Objectivity and subjectivity hence also interpenetrate, interfuse, and intertwine with each other, just as “The way up is one and the same as the way down,” (Fragment 60) in another Heraclitus fragment. “The straight and the crooked path of the fuller's comb is one and the same” (Fr. 59). “The sea is the purest and the impurest water. Fish can drink it, and it is good for them; to men it is undrinkable and destructive” (Fr. 61). The mystery of the consciousness in which this all takes place is itself the profoundest one, but also so obvious and immediate to us it is often overlooked or forgotten, comparable to a sort of sleep, blindness, or amnesia. Heidegger also explored this (‘forgetfulness of Being’) some millennia later, although with considerably more wordiness than Heraclitus; but he respected Heraclitus enough he did some great lectures on him with Fink. “I searched myself” (Fr. 80). Interfusion of the One and the Many, Monism and Pluralism: “ (59) Couples are things whole and things not whole, what is drawn together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious and the discordant. The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one” (Fr. 10).
>>23304354You should just come out and apologize for this retarded take, dummy
