What sparked my interest from the reading about Heraclitus was his concept of logos. It seemed to be described as a type of knowledge that humans are capable of, but don’t know how to access. The reading states that Heraclitus was attempting to bridge the gap between human and divine knowledge. From my point of view, Heraclitus seemed to have a condescending tone towards the human race for not understanding logos. He also had a condescending tone towards other philosophers because throughout the reading he continued to criticize them. His attitude when explaining his ideas caught me off guard because when trying to prove a point towards a certain group I would assume he would try an be more supporting towards previous philosophers instead of negatively commentating of the beliefs of most of the general public during his time period.

The more I contemplated the message Heraclitus was trying to relay I can somewhat understand why he was so aggressive about what he believed to be so true. He had strong beliefs about the physical world and made the statement that the physical sign of logos is fire: always changing yet always the same. This statement was so different then what previous philosophers had suggested that his argument would’ve had to have been convincing in a drastic way.