HoP 006 - MM 麦凯布论赫拉克利特

大家好，欢迎收听由伦敦国王学院和利弗休姆信托基金联合支持的《哲学史》播客。

Hi, and welcome to the History of Philosophy podcast supported by King's College London and the Leverhulme Trust.

今天是我们第一次带来一集特别节目。

Today we have a very special episode for the very first time.

我们邀请了一位哲学史领域的嘉宾，这位嘉宾就是我的同事、伦敦国王学院的麦凯布教授。

We're going to have a guest on the history of philosophy, and our guest is Professor McCabe, my colleague here at King's College London.

你好，彼得。

Hi Peter.

很高兴你能来，维。

Lovely to have you here, Very

能来到这里我也很开心。

nice to be here.

没错。

Absolutely.

今天我们要聊的是前苏格拉底哲学家赫拉克利特。

So today we're going to be talking about Heraclitus, the pre Socratic philosopher.

你能简单给我们回顾一下他是谁吗？

So could you just remind us quickly who he is?

赫拉克利特来自以弗所，公元前六世纪的前苏格拉底哲学家，可能是彻底改变哲学面貌的那个人。

So Heraclitus from Ephesus, sixth century BC, pre Socratic philosopher, maybe the guy who changed the face of it all.

明白了。

Right.

这其实正是我想问你的第一个问题。

So that is actually the first thing I wanted to ask you.

我想知道，你认为赫拉克利特真的代表了前苏格拉底哲学中的某种新东西，还是说他只是延续了米利都学派的做法，比如泰勒斯和阿那克西曼德这些人？

I wanted to ask you whether you think Heraclitus really represents something new in the history of pre Socratic philosophy, or whether he sort of just carries on what the Milesians had been doing, so Thales and Axamander, these guys.

有些人把他看作是这一脉相承中的一环，就像儿歌里选一个元素当本原那样：你选水，他选无限，那谁就选空气，赫拉克利特呢，好像没啥可选的了，干脆就选火。

So sometimes people represent him as just being one in a line, so you've got eeny, meeny, miny, moe choice of what you're going to use as your material principle.

大地不行，太死板了，得找点有活力的东西。

Thales says water, Anaximander says the indefinite, and Anaximenes says air, and Heraclitus kind of runs out of things to say, so he says fire.

火是活的，能变化，能转化，这才符合他想表达的宇宙观。

Earth is no good after all because it's inert, so you need something that's kind of active.

很多时候人们确实这么看，但我觉得把赫拉克利特仅仅当作延续前人，这种理解是错的。

And a lot of the time that's how it's represented, but it seems to me that that's a mistake to see Heraclitus as only doing.

他也许部分在延续，但他真正做的是更激进的事——让我们反思自己是如何思考这些问题的。

Maybe he's partly doing that, but what he's doing is something much more radical, which is to make us think about how we think about these questions.

你可能觉得米利都学派只是在探讨世界的本原是什么，但赫拉克利特想让我们思考的，是该如何去思考本身。

So you might understand the Maelesians as just thinking about what the principles are, but what Heraclitus is trying to get us to do is to think about how we should do the thinking itself.

这或许和我想问的另一件事有关，就是他做哲学的方式。

So maybe that relates to something else I wanted to ask you, which is the way that he seems to do philosophy.

我们目前了解赫拉克利特哲学的材料，大多是一些短句，就像上一期播客里我说的那些警句。

So most of the evidence that we have about Heraclitus' philosophy is in the form of what in the last podcast I was calling one liners, so these aphorisms.

有人读了这些警句，可能会觉得：这算什么哲学？不就一句话一句话的吗？

Guess someone might read these aphorisms and think, Well, that can't be philosophy because it's just one sentence at a time.

这怎么可能是哲学呢？

How could that be a philosophy?

比如那句‘上行的路和下行的路是同一条路’，你可能会想，这大概是在用隐喻表达某种更宏大的理论吧。

So supposing you think about the aphorism the road up and down is one and the same, so you might think, Oh, well, what this is supposed to be is a metaphor for some general theory that he's supposed to be enunciating.

它其实浓缩了他想表达的全部意思。

So it kind of encapsulates whatever it is he's trying to say.

你可能会这么想，很多人也确实这么认为，觉得他只是比前人说了更多类似的话，本质上没什么不同。

You might think that that and a lot of people do indeed think that that's what he's doing, in which case you might see him as being entirely continuous with his predecessors just says a lot more things.

这样一来，这些格言就只是格言了。

So the aphorisms then would just be aphorisms.

但在我看来，这种看法低估了格言里的悖论性，以及赫拉克利特写作方式的复杂程度。

But it seems to me that that underestimates the paradoxical element of the aphorisms and the very complex way in which Heraclitus actually writes.

我觉得这其中还有更多值得探讨的地方。

It seems to me that there's a great deal more to be said about it than that.

我觉得他的表达其实更具论证性。

I think it's much more argumentative.

所以你可能会觉得，他说‘上行之路与下行之路是同一条’，只是在提出一个观点，比如‘万物一体’之类的主张。

So you might think that when he says the road up and the road down are one and the same, it's just supposed to be a doctrine, and the doctrine would be something like everything is one or something like that.

对。

Right.

你可能会这么想，其实很多人也都是这么想的。

You might think that, and I think a lot of people do think that.

但假如你想象的不是有人随便抛出一句哲学主张，而是他每说一句话时都深思熟虑，特别在意听众的反应呢？

But supposing you imagine not just somebody announcing that as philosophical principle, but supposing he thinks quite hard when he says whatever it is he says about his audience.

你会发现，他文字的每一处都极其讲究，明显是在考虑读者会怎么理解。

So you can see that all the time, that the very careful way in which it's written makes it clear that he's thinking about how people read it.

回头看看他前辈们说过的话，你会发现，他们怎么表达其实并不重要。

When you think about what his predecessors said, you can see that it actually wouldn't matter how they put it.

比如有人说‘万物皆水’，你怎么说都行，意思基本不会变。

If somebody's going to say, Everything's made of water, for example, you can say that in all sorts of different ways and it means pretty much the same thing.

但当他讲‘这个逻各斯虽一成不变，人人都视而不见’时，你就会觉得，他是在刻意让你去琢磨他用的这些词本身。

When somebody says, This logos being one and the same, everybody behaves as if they don't understand it, looks as though what he's trying to do is to make us think about the actual words in which he says what he says.

如果真是这样，那他比起前辈们，显然更在意自己说的话会对听众产生什么影响。

If that's right, then maybe he's much more interested than his predecessors were in the effect of what he's saying on his audience.

你能举个例子说明一下吗？

So could you maybe illustrate this?

我们就拿他最著名的那段话来说吧，就是关于河流的那段。

So let's just take as an example his most famous fragment, this thing about the river.

对。

Mhmm.

你不可能两次踏入同一条河流，或者类似的说法。

So you can't step into the same river twice or however it spreads.

那这怎么算是一种论证，而不只是个格言呢？

So how would that work as an argument as opposed to just an aphorism?

通常认为只有一个河流悖论，但实际上有好几个。如果我们不抛弃其中任何一个，反而能拼凑出一个更像论证的东西。

The received wisdom is that there's only one river paradox, but in fact there are several, and one might be able to reconstruct something that looks much more like an argument if you suppose that we don't have to eliminate any of them.

假设有人走进房间，坐那儿对你说：好吧，你不可能两次踏入同一条河流。

So supposing somebody comes along, comes into the room and says, okay, and you're sitting there and he says, well, you can't step into the same river twice.

你回他：我能。

And you go, yeah, I can.

我看着呢。

I look.

我昨天就做过一次了。

I did it yesterday.

明天我还能再做一次。

I can do it again tomorrow.

赫拉克利特又说了，你不可能两次踏入同一条河流。

And Heraclitus says it again, you can't step into the same river twice.

你仔细想想，觉得他可能说得对。

And you think about it a little bit, and you say to yourself, Well, maybe he's right.

赫拉克利特在另一个片段里也证实了这一点，他说：‘踏入同一条河流的人，遇到的水流总是新的。’

And Heraclitus confirms what you say by saying, Well, to those who step into the same rivers, different and different waters flow, he says in another fragment.

到这时候，你可能会忍不住说：‘哦，原来我真的没法两次踏入同一条河流。’

At that point, you might find yourself saying, oh, well, yeah, maybe I can't step into the same river twice.

然后你开始有点不安，怀疑这世上到底还有没有真正的河流。

And you then end up feeling kind of anxious about whether there are any rivers out there.

他可能会再强调一遍：你不可能两次踏入同一条河流，因为河水一直在变。但你突然明白，说它是同一条河，正是因为河床没变；可它又是条不同的河，因为水已经换了。

Then he might say, again, you can't step into the same river twice because in the same river's different and different waters flow, and you understand that actually it is the same river because you couldn't say that unless it was the same river, but it's a different river because of the different waters.

那你现在明白了什么？

Now what have you understood?

你对河流本身可能没看出什么特别的，但你确实搞清楚了‘同一条河’和‘不同的水’这两个说法是怎么运作的。

Well, you haven't understood anything particularly about rivers, but you've understood quite a lot about the way in which the qualification same river and the qualification different waters work.

这确实挺有意思的。

Okay, that's really interesting.

所以我想，这里自然会冒出几个问题。

So I guess the question that arises there well, maybe there's a couple of questions.

一个是，这难道是在告诉我们关于现实本质的普遍道理，而不仅仅是在说河流？

One is, is this supposed to be a general message to us about the nature of reality, if it's not just about rivers?

如果这真是个普遍道理，那他是不是在耍花招？

And if it is supposed to be a general message, then is he sort of cheating?

因为他选的都是这些例子，对吧？

Because he picks these examples, right?

有河流，有上山的路和下山的路，还有海水——它既能致病又能治病。

There's the river, there's the road up and the road down, there's the seawater, which is poisonous and healthy.

对。

Right.

那他是故意挑这些例子来耍花招，还是说他真能从这种论证中合理推导出关于现实的普遍结论？

So is he just cheating by picking these examples, or do you think that he can legitimately infer some general thesis about reality from this sort of argument?

对。

Right.

你可以想想关于海水的那段话。

So it might be that you think think about the seawater fragment.

海水对人来说是毒药，对鱼来说却是有益的。

The seawater is poisonous and healthy, poisonous for men and healthy for fishes.

你可能会觉得，他是从‘海水对人有毒、对鱼有益’这个事实，推断出海水本身某种意义上既是毒药又是良药，这听起来挺让人不安的。

You might think that this is supposed to be an inference from, perhaps, from the fact that seawater is poisonous for men and healthy for fishes to the claim that seawater is somehow or other both poisonous and healthy, which looks kind of worrying.

然后他可能进一步推论，说所有事物都像这样。

And then it might be that he draws an inference from that that everything behaves like that.

正如你所说，他或许是在用一些特例来支撑一个普遍观点，但这些特例其实不足以支撑那个普遍结论。

And as you say, it may be that he's using using specialized examples to make a general point, and he can't justify the general point from those specialized examples.

但你也可以反过来想。

But you could turn it on its head.

你可以假设，他心里想的是，你对自己说：天哪。

You could suppose that what he imagines is that you say something to yourself like, oh, crikey.

海水既是毒药又是良药。

Seawater is poisonous and healthy.

这让我担心，因为它是个矛盾，就像上坡和下坡是一回事。

That worries me because it's a contradiction just like the road up and down.

当我站在路上，上和下变成同一个方向时，会发生什么？

What happens when I stand on the road and the up and down is one and the same?

我该往哪个方向走？

Which way do I go?

这种焦虑感。

That kind of anxiety.

所以，正是这些例子的实用性，让人觉得一旦你对听众讲这些，听众可能会想：天啊，我这下真麻烦了。

So the very practicality of the examples makes it see that once again if you're speaking to an audience, the audience might go, oh goodness, I'm really in trouble here.

赫拉克利特接着说，别担心，海水对人类来说有毒，但对鱼类却是有益的。

And then what Heraclitus does is say, no, no, no, don't worry because seawater is poisonous for men but healthy for fishes.

所以你可能会觉得，他真正想表达的并不是现实本身混乱不堪，而是我们看待现实的方式出了问题。

So you might think that what he's observing there is not so much some kind of awful conglomeration of reality, but something about the way we think about reality.

也就是说，我们如何思考形而上学和逻辑上的矛盾问题。

So something about how we think, for example, about problems of the metaphysical and logical problems of contradiction.

海水怎么可能既是毒物又是良药呢？

What is it for seawater both to be poisonous and healthy?

一条路怎么可能既是上坡又是下坡呢？

What is it for a road both to be up and down?

这其实挺有意思的，因为这让他和巴门尼德有了一些共同点——巴门尼德的事，我们下周的播客会讲。

So that's that's, I think, interesting because that would give him something in common with Parmenides, who also says Parmenides that will be the subject of next week's podcast.

巴门尼德也说，大多数人对世界的理解充满矛盾，而他的哲学就是要解决这些矛盾。

And Parmenides also says that most people's way of thinking about the world is beset by contradictions, and his philosophy will come along and resolve it.

所以如果你说得对，那通常被看作对立的赫拉克利特和巴门尼德，实际上做的事还挺相似的。

And so if you're right, actually Heraclitus and Parmenides, who are usually contrasted to each other, turn out to be doing something rather similar.

我觉得没错，如果真是这样，那帕门尼德斯在某些地方可能就是在回应赫拉克利特，是在让我们思考赫拉克利特说过的话。

I think that's right, and I think that if that's right, you might think that Parmenides is actually referring to Heraclitus on one or two occasions, that he's asking us to think about what Heraclitus seems to have said.

如果你从这个角度去理解，就会觉得赫拉克利特真正想让我们明白的是：矛盾根本不用怕，总能被理顺。

Supposing you think about it in those terms, you might then say, well, what Heraclitus is trying to make us see is that we don't need to worry about contradictions because you can always unravel them.

你总可以说，海水对人有毒，对鱼却有益；这条路从这一头看是上坡，从另一头看就是下坡。

You can always say poisonous for men and healthy for fishes up from this end and down from the other end.

但人们常常误解了他，甚至可能正是这种误解让帕门尼德斯感到不安。

But he was often understood to be doing the reverse, and it may be that that was upsetting Parmenides.

所以传统上，尤其是亚里士多德，可能还有柏拉图，都认为赫拉克利特是在断言矛盾是真实存在的，没有任何前提。

So some of the tradition, Aristotle in particular and maybe Plato too, has Heraclitus asserting that contradictions turn up without qualification.

再想想海水这件事。

Think about the sea water again.

我之前说过，他可能是故意这么说：海水既是毒的，又是有益的。

I suggested that he might work on his audience by putting, seawater is poisonous and healthy.

听众一听，天哪，这说的什么啊。

Audience goes, oh, crikey.

实在受不了了。

Can't bear it.

帮帮我。

Help.

快帮帮我。

Help.

接着赫拉克利特就说了：海水对人有毒，对鱼却有益。

And then Heraclitus helps them by saying, Poisonous for men, healthy for fishes.

也可能情况正好相反。

It might work the other way around.

假设有人跑过来说：哎，你有没有注意到海水，对人有毒，对鱼却有益。

Supposing somebody comes along and says, Oh, funny thing about seawater, you know, it's poisonous for men and healthy for fishes.

赫拉克利特可能会由此推断——就像有些人认为的那样——海水本身是自相矛盾的，因此亚里士多德所说的矛盾律，或许在某种限定意义上被赫拉克利特否定了。

And Heraclitus might then draw the inference, as sometimes he was thought to do, that seawater is contradictory and so that the law of non contradiction, as Aristotle suggested, might be somehow or other, in its qualified form, being denied by Heraclitus.

对。

Right.

所以，如果你从柏拉图和亚里士多德谈论赫拉克利特的角度来看，尤其是柏拉图，问题是：你是从矛盾出发去解决矛盾，还是反过来，但无论哪种方式，都感觉不到他真的痴迷于变化。

So I guess the question then, if you were thinking about the way Plato and Aristotle talk about Heraclitus, and especially Plato, is that whether you go from the contradiction to the resolution of the contradiction or the other way around, it still doesn't sound like he's obsessed with change.

我一直在想，为什么在柏拉图那里，我们会觉得赫拉克利特讲的全是所谓的‘流变’——那种每一刻都完全不同的剧烈变化？

So one thing I'm wondering is why in Plato do we get this idea that Heraclitus is all about what's sometimes called flux, so this kind of radical change where nothing is ever the same from moment to moment?

因为你刚才说的，更像是同一个事物在同时具备相互矛盾的属性。

Because what you're talking about sounds more like contradictory principles that are true of the same thing at the same time.

对。

Right.

关于柏拉图的解读，还有一个更深层的问题：有些版本认为，柏拉图其实认为赫拉克利特关心的是矛盾，而不是变化，变化只是矛盾的一个表现，而不是相反。

There's an extra question there in the interpretation of Plato, because some versions, interpretations of what Plato says has Plato saying that Heraclitus was interested in contradiction, not change, and that change is just an aspect of contradiction rather than the other way around.

所以，这也是一种可能。

So that's a possibility.

另一种可能是，赫拉克利特本人本来就没把这些问题说死。

A different possibility is that, of course, Heraclitus leaves these things open.

如果我理解得没错，他用悖论的方式，就是为了让听众对他说的话产生反应。

So if I'm right about the way that he uses paradox, he uses paradox by getting his audience to respond to what he said.

但如果他真这么做的话，那就是通过留白，就像你刚才说的格言那样——比如‘人不能两次踏入同一条河流’，后面就戛然而止，剩下的全靠听众自己去琢磨。

But if he's gonna do that, then he does it by leaving them open, by saying by just by to go back to what you said about aphorisms, by saying, well, you can't step into the same river twice, dot dot dot, and then all the work is being done by the audience.

如果真是这样，那听众对他有各种各样的解读，他也实在没理由抱怨。

If that's right, then he can hardly complain if the audience interprets him in lots of different ways.

确实，赫拉克利特留下的很多残篇都让人觉得他相信万物始终在变化，但要说变化快到像柏拉图抱怨的那样——连谈论它们都来不及，我觉得这不太可能。

And it's certainly true that there are lots and lots of fragments in Heraclitus that make one think that he does suppose that things are changing all the time, whether they're changing radically all the time so fast that we, as Plato complains, we can't ever even talk about them, seems to me to be unlikely.

在我看来，赫拉克利特对变化的看法根本不是这样。

It doesn't seem to me that that is what Heraclitus' line is on change.

更可能的是，我来举个残篇例子看看。

It's much more I mean, if there are fragments I'm just gonna look at a fragment now.

最典型的例子是第31条残篇，他谈的是宇宙层面的变化，说大地变成海洋，而这一切都遵循同一个‘逻各斯’。

So the obvious example is fragment 31 where he seems to be talking about cosmic change and he talks about earth changing into sea and being measured to the same logos.

有意思的是，他在这里用的‘逻各斯’，和他整个理论开篇用的那个词完全一样。

And it's very interesting that he uses the same word there, logos, as the word that he uses to introduce his whole theory.

他显然在不同残篇里玩弄着‘逻各斯’这个词的多重含义，故意让我们在不同语境中反复琢磨它的意思。

Something is going on in the play that he's making between different senses of different senses of logos or different ways in which we might think about logos in different part in different fragments that he's that he's launching at us.

这其实回到了你之前提到的一点，就是他确实认真思考过自己表达哲学的方式。

So that goes back to something you were saying before about him actually thinking carefully about the way that he is presenting his own philosophy.

没错。

Exactly.

我们应当留意他使用的每一个字词

We're supposed to attend to the exact words that

他用的词。

he's using.

我觉得说得对。

I think that's right.

我觉得说得对。

I think that's right.

比如，有三个关于‘逻各斯’的残篇值得一看。

So for example, there are three logos fragments one might think of.

第一个是他说：这个逻各斯一直如此，但没人留意它。

The first one where he says, nobody this is the this logos is always like this, but nobody pays any attention to it.

所以看起来，他所描述的正是他所说的内容。

So it looks as though what he's describing is what he's saying.

第二个是第31段残篇，他谈到大地与水之间的变化似乎以某种规律而平衡的方式被掌控或衡量。

The second one is the is fragment 31 where he's talking about what seems to be a regular and balanced way in which the changes between earth and water are somehow or other managed or measured.

第三个是精彩的残篇，说你永远无法找到灵魂的边界，哪怕你走遍每一条路。

The third one, brilliant fragment, says going after the limits of soul, you wouldn't find them even although you went along every road.

这个逻各斯真是深不可测。

Such a deep logos does it have.

所以你可以用逻各斯来谈论灵魂，谈论自我，而永远触及不到它的尽头。

So you can use logos for what one might say about souls, what one might say about oneself and never being able to reach the end of it.

还有另一个他所描述的逻各斯，没人能真正发现它。

And then there's this other one that the logos that he describes that nobody's ever gonna find out about.

而某种方式下，有一种力量在协调着宇宙变化的尺度。

And then somehow or other, there's something that organizes the measure of cosmic change.

这两者之间，不可能是偶然的。

Now between those, it can't be an accident.

首先，他在让我们思考他是如何写作的。

First, that he's asking us to think about how he writes.

其次，他在这所有语境中使用同一个词，目的是让我们思考：这里所指的，究竟是像灵魂一样永远无法穷尽的东西，还是某种恰好平衡、有度且井然有序的东西。

Second, that he's using the same word in all of those contexts to make us think about whether what we're looking at here is something inexhaustible as it would be in the case of soul or something that somehow rather properly balanced and measured and and well organized.

到底该想哪一个，并不特别明确，也许我们该同时考虑两者。

It's not terribly clear which of it which of those we're supposed to think, or maybe we're supposed to think both.

也许最终我们该说：一方面如此，另一方面又那样，而这种负担，落在了读者或听众身上。

Maybe we're supposed to end up by saying, well, on the one hand and on the other, and the the burden is put on the reader or the audience.

所以回到你问的，是什么让这成为哲学——在我看来，正是这种辩证的特质，让你读赫拉克利特时，不得不与他对话。

That's what that so to go back to your question about what makes this philosophy for my money, that's what makes it philosophy, that it's got this dialectical quality that means that you can't means that you can't read Heraclitus without engaging with him.

如果你不与他对话，那读他的东西也就没了意义。

Or if you don't engage with him, then there's no point in reading it, as it were.

所以让这成为哲学的，不只是它有论点，而是它在和某个人对话，也就是读者。

So what makes it philosophy is not just that it's arguments, but that it's arguments with somebody, namely Yes.

正在阅读的那个人。

The person reading

没错。

Exactly.

这话说得好。

That's nice.

正是如此。

Exactly.

我喜欢这个说法。

I like that.

我觉得把赫拉克利特当成宇宙学家来理解会遇到问题，因为这样会把他看成有一套客观固定的见解，但在我看来，事情并不是这样的。

And I think that's where construing him as a cosmologist comes into difficulties because that represents him as being somehow or other an objective set of views, and that's not quite how it works, it seems to me.

在结束之前，我想问你一件事，因为你是唯一一个我认识的、亲自修改过赫拉克利特残篇文本的人。

So before we conclude, I wanted to ask you about one other thing, because you're the only person I know personally who has changed the text of a Heraclitus fragment.

所以你能跟我们说说，是哪个残篇，还有你改了哪里吗？

So could you tell us about the fragment and the text that

我啊，好吧。

I've Okay.

我来跟你讲讲第125号残篇。

I'm going to tell you about fragment a 125.

第125号残篇，现在流传的版本，讲的是一种难喝的希腊饮品。

Fragment a 125, the received version of fragment a 125, it's about a disgusting Greek drink.

这种难喝的饮料叫‘波塞特’，听着好像挺不错，其实特别恶心。

The disgusting Greek drink is called a posset, which sounds kind of a good thing, but it's actually rather nasty.

就是油、酒，有时候还加奶酪和陈年谷物的碎屑。

It's sort of it's oil and wine and sometimes cheese and bits of old grain.

好吃吗？别逗了。

Yum.

关键是，这玩意儿有点像沙拉酱。

And the point about it is it's a bit like salad dressing.

你得摇一摇，它才能混在一起。

You have to shake it in order to make it stick together.

对吧？

Right?

所以这个残片的通行版本是这么说的：没搅动的话，这种饮品就会分层。

So the fragment goes like the received version of the fragment goes like this, and the posset separates if it's not stirred.

我觉得，人们一想到这个，脑子里全是詹姆斯·邦德的镜头，太受那些画面影响了。

People, I think, have been excessively taken over by images of James Bond when they think about this.

所以实际上，这东西你得一直摇着，不然它就会散开。

So the idea is that it's the sort of object that you have to keep shaking it otherwise it falls to pieces.

这个残片的希腊原文是这样的。

The Greek of the fragment goes like this.

对吧？

Right?

这就是它的样子。

So that's how it looks.

不过我觉得，这个解释其实没多大意思，因为核心的两个动词，一个是表示静止的，另一个是表示运动的。

Now I think that that's a kind of that's not nearly as interesting as it could be because the two central verbs are a verb about standing still and its opposite, a verb about moving.

而目前主流的理解是，表示静止的那个词被加了个前缀，改成了‘分离’的意思。

And the way that the received opinion has it, the the standing still bit has been changed into something that's translated as separate by the addition of a prefix to the verb.

所以为了解决这个问题，你得在表示移动的部分前面加个否定词，这样就成了‘如果它不移动，乳酪就会分离’。

Then in order to fix that, you have to put a negative in front of the moving bit so you get the posit separates if it's not moving.

我的建议是：把表示静止的那个词前缀去掉，同时去掉否定词，那就变成‘乳酪在移动时保持静止’。

So my suggestion is get rid of the prefix on the standing still bit and get rid of negative, and you have the posset stand still when it's moving.

就像关于河流的那个问题一样，这其实是个关于同一性的悖论。

So just like the question about rivers, it's a paradox about identity.

但只有在它流动的时候，才真正算得上是乳酪。

But it's really a posset only when it's moving.

所以，乳酪只有在流动时，才真正保持静止。

So it's really standing still as a posset only when it's moving.

这就是我的修正方案。

So that's my emendation.

太精彩了。

Brilliant.

这正好说明，赫拉克利特的文本本身也在不断变化

So that shows us that very appropriately the texts of Heraclitus themselves are changing all

就是这个时间。

the time.

没错。

Absolutely.

好吧，谢谢老天。

Well, thank No.

希望现在终于不再变了。

I hope that's finished changing now.

非常感谢你参加我们的播客。

Well, thank you very much for joining us on the podcast.

希望你下次能再来，聊聊柏拉图，到时候你可以证明

I hope you'll come back in a future episode to talk about Plato, and then you can prove

我很乐意。

Be happy to.

你可以证明，同一个播客竟然能进两次。

You can prove that it's possible to step into the same podcast twice.

谢谢。

Thank you.

非常感谢你，埃文。

Thanks very much, Evan.

下周我会回到常规格式，聊聊巴门尼德。

And next week, I will be returning to the usual format and talking about Parmenides.

到时候再聊。

Talk to you then.