| dc.description.abstract | Without intending to innovate much of what has already been written about Heraclitus, we
seek, in this text, to bring an understanding of what would be the relationship between ethics
and Nature (physis) in this obscure philosopher. The philosopher of logos, as we tried to
highlight at the beginning, revealed a concern with the social order not only through his
maxims, but also in some of the reports about his life that reached us. Then (from the reading
of Charles Kahn), we locate the philosopher of fire between two visions of his time (6th
century BC), a popular one (mythical, we would also say), in which he participates, insofar as
he refers to a natural (divine) law, source of inspiration for human laws, which are pale
reflections of that, and a scientific one, of which he was also a precursor, for example, with
the theories of the unity of opposites and permanent flux. Subsequently, we justify the
understanding according to which Heraclitus cannot be considered a moral relativist (from the
action of logos as a criterion of truth and, therefore, as a legitimator of the possibility of
knowledge). We then present an interpretation (based on Cruchaga's reading) of DK. 45 in
conjunction with DK.115 (which speak of the logos of the human soul) which, together,
would answer for the ethical condition of the psychic logos (as suggested by Juliana Gonzáles
in her article). In the end, armed with the exposition made, we try to explain the relationship
put in the title of this article, that is, the relationship between ethics and nature (physis) in
Heraclitus, also indicating an ethical implication observed in the remaining material of this
philosopher: the autonomy of the moral agent in the solitary construction of a solidary ethics. | |
