Here's where I disagree with Heraclitus. Nevermind his position that the Logos is part of the universe, as opposed to a transcendent cause of the order found within the universe. There's also a major difficulty with his notion of everything in a constant state of flux. He goes further than the Aristotelian, who acknowledges change in things that exhibit potentiality. Heraclitus maintains that one cannot step into the same river twice not just because it's no longer the same river, but also because it's no longer the same person stepping into it!
Imagine taking this mentality into the courtroom. "Your honor, I couldn't have committed the crime, because there's no such thing as a person who maintains his identity." Do you think the judge, let alone an entire jury, would be impressed by such an objection?
The Aristotelian can make sense out of the change that occurs throughout the world by postulating that the form of the person, which is identified with the soul, remains the same, even though the body undergoes steady change.