09 February 2007


I'll be discussing over the next several days an article published just yesterday in SEP by Daniel Graham on Heraclitus. (How's that for currency?) Please read along if you wish to join me.

My first impression (I grant that first impressions are often misleading) is that I'm struck by what seems a double-standard in the article: lots of rigor and a commendably high standard of evidence when the interpretations of others are examined, but a certain breeziness when the author's own interpretation is being advanced.

(Why give a first impression? This is a blog after all. I can easily give second and third impressions.)

Also, I wonder if the article really is suitable for an encyclopedia. It even has a footnote. (This ties into the earlier point. The author's quickness when putting forward his own view is certainly understandable, if he writes as relying on work published elsewhere. But then the article would not be suitable for an encyclopedia, as not being on its own terms self-contained.)

Of course, one might wonder whether an encyclopedia article on Heraclitus is even possible.