The divergence of Eastern and Western philosophy came to be expressed in the relationship of individual and state. This relationship is a more reliable measure than the words and dictums of representative thinkers.
Thus in ancient China the saying attributed to Confucius identifies the ethical foundation of Chinese philosophy. Because educated males were expected to use their knowledge and writing skills on behalf of the state, the dictum advised: “Serve when the emperor is good, recluse when the emperor is corrupt (or evil, etc.).” This moral principle gave psychological latitude to dissenters, nonconformists, and the morally sensitive. Because China was a large country geographically, wilderness was available to whomever might dissent, willing to live in remote and distant lands.
During the age of the philosophers in ancient Greek Athens, no parallel political option of reclusion was available to the dissenter or nonconformist. Additionally, enthusiasm for democracy and social participation called for service in one form or another, and the relation of individual was to the citizenry of the immediate geographical or civic unit. Civic engagement, if not conviviality, was considered a hallmark achievement of the city-state. The city of Athens reserved a punitive sentence not only imposing verdicts against tried criminals (such as Socrates) but reserved the decreeing of ostracism against alleged or libeled individuals for whom no specific or described crime was brought. Such was the measure called banishment or ostracism.
Anybody, any citizen, any peer, could allege offenses against another citizen and vote on banishment, with the length of exile up to ten years. Such a measure was considered an option of pure democracy. The place of banishment or ostracism was eremos, translated as “desert” or “wilderness.”
Not many ancient Athenians actually suffered ostracism. However, the idea and practice inj itself suggests an extreme measure reserved to the majority. Thus, while the few historical figures punished with ostracism were military figures, the punishment had no defined limit of potential crimes or victims.
The pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus was apparently intensely disliked by his fellows, at least according to his biographer Diogenes Laertius. Heraclitus opposed the traditional Greek philosophical premise popular from Parmenides to Plato to Aristotle, the notion of absolutes, forms, or monads. These intangible Absolutes were the real basis of phenomenon, the real and abiding objects in the universe. Against this metaphysics, Heraclitus is famous for advocating a philosophy of flux, or change. Thus his contrary statement that no one steps into the same river twice. The river is not the same. Nor are we. The river that flows before us will never be seen again, is not the river you will see tomorrow.
But the other source of resentment against Heraclitus may be his simplicity of living. He lived alone in a hut, with meager belongings, in contrast to the probable scene in the Athenian marketplace and living districts, the conversations about money, politics, property, status. One day, a delegation of citizens called upon Heraclitus. Discovering the simplicity of his home, the visitors were offended and showed it in their expressions. Heraclitus noticed. He said quietly, “But here, too, the daimons dwell.” Meaning that not in luxurious temples and at household shrines but in humble places like his rude hut, the gods or spirits come and dwell, finding its dweller compatible.
Heraclitus was not ostracized. He could not be accused of military or political crimes or of corrupting the youth, as Socrates was re the latter. Urban and social life must have been overwhelming enough that Heraclitus finally ostracized himself. It is said that Heraclitus spent his last years on an island, the equivalent of eremos, where he pursued vegetarianism and solitude. His biographer called him the “dark” philosopher.