Analysis Of Heraclitus 'Explanation Of The Universe'

Heraclitus’ explanation of the universe was constant flux and opposition that explained everything that happened in nature. He uses a river as an example to explain that the water running is in opposition against the earth but this opposition creates the river, and even though the water in the river is never the same, it’s still a river. He also uses this observation in nature to justify the existence of strife and war because the need for justice and structure is created in accordance to that chaos. Under Heraclitus’ explanation, everything is unified by a rational order called logos that structures the whole universe. He also that through our observations and with the proper senses, someone can gain great understanding about the universe. However, Parmenides’ explanation about the universe is contrary to Heraclitus’ in which he states not to trust the senses with your observations as the senses aren’t reliable. Parmenides’ explanation also goes against Heraclitus’ by stating that a BEING is what’s in charge of the universe instead of some logical order. He argues that anything that is thought and talked about is possible to be in existence, and therefore it’s impossible for nothing to exist. His argument is based on that there’s a BEING because of what nothing implies it contradicts itself that it first implies that there’s a thing

In his physical word, things are in constant flux and is observable through our senses. In the intelligible world the forms are eternal and never changing and is learned through reason not through the sense. His argument for the existence of forms is similar to the allegory of the cave in which the forms are actually the only real thing with the physical world just being a reflection of forms. Just like in the allegory, the observations were misleading interpretations of the shadow of the real