For Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BCE), it meant both the source and fundamental order of the Cosmos (universe):
But though the Logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own. [Fragment 2]In short, Logos means source and fundamental order of the Cosmos. (One might think of it as "algorithm from inception.") Thus it is also the standard or criterion by which men may distinguish things truthfully, "according to their nature."Those who speak with the mind must strengthen themselves with that which is common to all [i.e., the Logos].... For all human laws nourish themselves from the one divine [i.e., the Logos] — which prevails as it will, and suffices for all things and more than suffices. [Fragment 114]
Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it — not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it — at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth. My own method is to distinguish each thing according to its nature, and to specify how it behaves; other men, on the contrary, as as forgetful and heedless in their waking moments of what is going on around and within them as they are during sleep. [Fragment 1]
Which is basically the way I see it, as further elaborated by the Gospel of John, which identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos, through which all things are made; and as divine intermediary between God and the world.
You wrote: "When a news reporter presents some wild story you know can’t be true, and someone remarks, 'that’s not the truth,' what does that mean?"
It means: Someone realizes that the reporter is presenting a falsification of reality.
oops. Sorry I didn’t see this.
Betty, what language did Heraclitus write in?
What language was the book of John written in?
You do know there is a difference, don’t you? (The question is rhetorical, I think.)
Have a question for you. Why do you always have to “characterize” people and their comments with words like “reductionist?” Is that just a Christian’s way of calling people names? Don’t feel you have to stop. It doesn’t bother me, just wonder why you feel the need to do that rather than just addressing the issues.
Hank