Harmony as an Ideal: A Proposal for the Further Development of Heraclitus’ Approach

In the study that follows, one might find several elements that, building on the concept of Heraclitean Harmony, move it a step further. This is especially notable considering that Heraclitus himself did not seem inclined to assign a more specialized meaning to the notion of Harmony. In particular, as Karl Jaspers observes, Heraclitus does not explicitly explain – at least in the surviving fragments – either the precise way in which opposites are connected (or united) with each other, or in what exact sense one might speak of a unity of opposites. Nor does he attempt to construct a “logic of oppositions” (a dialectic); rather, he simply starts from the grand vision of that which exists everywhere as the One and the Same. Besides, Heraclitus never even raised the question of how a synthesis – as opposed to a mere unity – of opposing forces might be achieved, for example, by envisioning “noble competition/fair play” as a harmonization of war and peace. Instead, these reflections possess in this study a primarily autonomous philosophical character, which – taking Heraclitean thought as their starting point – explore Harmony as an ideal for contemporary humanity. This ideal, according to the author, is based on the idea that each opposite contains elements useful to the mind (advantages) as well as harmful to it (disadvantages). The advantages of the one opposite are the disadvantages of the other. Hence, if one desires to attain the maximum advantages of a situation and/or the possible minimum disadvantages, one has to combine the opposites, to balance them properly and thus achieve harmony. Externally, this balance finds its expression in the form of ideals, such as justice, which is the balance between tolerance and severity.