The Limit of the Law through a Philosophical Lens
Arcesilaus of Aeolis once made a statement that can easily sum up, ironically, the positive correlation between a legal system and injustice: “Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice” (Quotationspage.com). Typically, a wonderful legal system is often put in place by a system of checks-and-balances to ensure any defendants will be treated equally in the eye of the goddess of justice. This system will generally include a sophisticated jury and a rational judge. At first, this system works so well even Heraclitus of Ephesus advises that everyone should abide by the law: “ ... as a state stands by the law ... For all human laws are in keeping of the one divine law; for the one divine law has as much power as it wishes, is an unfailing defence for all laws, and prevails over all laws” (Waterfield, “Heraclitus of Ephesus” 39 F12). But what if the laws today’s societies tolerate are unjust, Heraclitus? Certainly, no rational beings actually believe that any legal system in the world is completely sound. In fact, they are all seriously flawed and therefore, the question which has been raised for thousands of years remains: “What is the root of the problem?” One theory seems to explain this: the deception of human beings’ sensory perception.
Thus, the purpose of this paper will be to examine, based on various fragments that Heraclitus develops as well as testimonies from his contemporaries, how exactly the laws are treated under the influence of the senses. This will be greatly helpful when I attempt to understand why certain laws fail and whether human beings are really in any positions to legislate just laws.
Right at the beginning, Heraclitus points out the major difference between human beings and the divinity: “Unlike divine nature, human nature lacks sound judgements” (37-8 F2). Recalling from earlier that Heraclitus claims “all human laws are in keeping of the one divine law,” I notice a paradox in Heraclitus’s different fragments. Strangely, if “human nature lacks sound judgements,” how will it be possible for a society to prevail over a set of rules that are created by “human nature” itself? Nevertheless, I should keep in mind that the nickname the “Obscure” is granted to Heraclitus for a reason.
Let me now move on and carefully examine Heraclitus’s texts to find out what his perspectives on the human’s senses are: “ ‘It is impossible to step twice into the same river,’ as Heraclitus says ... ‘It scatters and regathers, comes together and dissolves, approaches and departs’ (41 F34). Most people who come across this fragment and concern for the first time will take what I call the “surface-level” interpretation—that Heraclitus believes in an ever-changing universe. However, the translator Waterfield offers us a wonderful explanation: “This of course relates to Heraclitus’ skepticism about the evidence of the senses: there is nothing on the face of the world that we can securely grasp or base our moral opinions on; so we had better wake up and look to the underlying stability and unity of things” (34). Here, Heraclitus introduces the idea of the fallacy of sensation, which is, truly, the root of all evils.
In order to further understand this issue, let us step back and consider what the primary difference between being awake and asleep is, literally, for human beings. When I let my body at rest, I relax most of my senses, and thus I am less capable of what is going on around me. When I wake up, all my senses spring to work, and help me recognize my surroundings. Or do they? Heraclitus points out at the beginning of F1 that this has never been the case right: “... But the general run of people are unaware of their actions while awake as they are of what they do while asleep” (37 F1). Thus, for a majority of people, the sense tricks them into only seeing things as they appear to be, and misguides us into a realm of illusions. Sensation allures human beings into the “what-is-not,” which, according to Parmenides of Elea, is a clear dead-end. In F8, he confirms: “ ... Therefore all those things which mortal men, / Trusting in their true reality, have proposed, are no more than names-/ Both bird and perishing, both being and not being, / Change of place, and alteration of bright colouring” (60 F8). However, I should not completely discredit our senses, for they provide the easiest means for human beings to interact with the surroundings. In fact, many philosophers, including Aristotle, highly regard the importance of our senses: “All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight” (Aristotle 689).
What I would like to condemn is the combination of the senses and the human’s ignorance, stemmed from a herd mentality that most human beings adopt. This critical clarification is also supported by Heraclitus: “But of this principle which holds forever people prove ignorant, not only before they hear it, but also once they have heard of it” (37 F1, emphasis added). At this point, it is worth noting that the word “forever” is perhaps the most important word in this statement. According to Waterfield, even Aristotle misunderstands Heraclitus for he is unsure as to whether the word “forever” should go with the previous phrase, “But of this principle which holds” or with the phrase followed right after, “people prove ignorant.” Indeed, to Heraclitus, the word should cleave to both phrases (316-17). Thus, it is conclusive to say that what Heraclitus is trying to condemn here is the unchanging insensitivity of human beings to the surrounding universe, blinded by their sensory perception.
Fortunately, the “Obscure” does not just abandon human beings in the midst of doubt as to where the path to apprehend the logos really is. He clearly advises all mankind to always seek the true path: “And so one ought to follow what is common. Although the principle [logos] is common, the majority of people live as though they had private understanding” (38 F6). Therefore, how will it be possible for these “ignorant souls” to seek the common? Ironically, according to Heraclitus, the senses, undoubtedly, play a rather important role on this quest: “The things I rate highly are those which are accessible to sight, hearing, apprehension” (41 F28). This may seem rather paradoxical at first whereas I already examined earlier that Heraclitus condemns the senses as a mere barrier between human beings and the logos. However, for those who are familiar with Heraclitus’s texts, it is not bizarre to observe his intention behind the use of opposite elements. F21 hints to me that Heraclitus believes in the harmony created from contraries: “They are ignorant of how while tending away it agrees with itself—a back-turning harmony, like a bow or a lyre” (40 F21). Therefore, I must figure out a way, based on Heraclitus’s guidance, to justify the link between human and the divine law by relying on sensitive attunement. Heraclitus, again, provides me with a hint, despite how obscure it is: “Everyone has the potential for self-knowledge and sound thinking” (41 F31). This optimistic and upbeat statement is quite contradicting to most of the fragments I have studied so far, since earlier, I have looked at how disdainful Heraclitus is towards the ignorance of human beings. Nevertheless, according to Heraclitus, what constitutes the link between human and the divine law must involve the methodology of self-introspection and our sensory perception. Only when being able to harmonize the two can human beings reach the true path to the logos.
Let me step back and examine what the real consequences of a legal system that is blindfolded purely by the senses are. Many people’s memories and impression of the racial and social segregation in the United States may have dimmed with the sands of time. Yet I can still easily find evidence of an exciting time when Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King started fighting against the injustice in the society. Back then, the most popular sign on the streets was perhaps: “No blacks allowed.” One should bear in mind that this complete injustice was recognized by the legal system and thus, was generally acceptable in the society back then. As I see in the case of the segregation in the United States in the last century, what ultimately decides the final judgment comprises of mostly what the senses create—perhaps this is where the word “eyewitness” comes from in our dictionary. To make matters worse, the legal clauses that we all rely on are made up of beliefs, again created by sensations, hundreds of years ago. However, fortunately, Heraclitus offers a methodology that can possibly create bondage between human beings and the divine law: a harmony between sensory perception and constant introspection into the self. Yet this path remains unclear and not until later that Plato comes to the assistance with his insights into a more comprehensive solution. For now, an insight raised by one of the Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter, is worth examined regarding our legal systems: “Fragile as reason is and limited as law is as the institutionalised medium of reason, that’s all we have between us and the tyranny of mere will and the cruelty of unbridled, undisciplined feelings” (Quotationspage.com).[1]
“I pledge my honor that I have neither received nor provided unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.”
Works Cited
Arcesilaus. The Quotations Page. 2010. 18 September 2011. Web.
Aristotle. "Metaphysica." The Basic Works of Aristotle. Edited Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 2001. 689 - 926. Print.
Frankfurter, Felix. The Quotations Page. 2010. 18 September 2011. Web.
Waterfield, Robin, trans. “Heraclitus of Ephesus.” The First Philosophers: The Presocratics and the Sophists. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 32 - 48. Print.
[1] The author would like to express his utmost appreciation towards Professor Ronald Waite for his assistance during the completion of this work.
