The thing that makes the question difficult to answer is that both Heraclitus and Parmenides make valid points as to why their way is correct but at the same time they do have flaws in their view points. Heraclitus’ view on change is that he believed that the universe was dictated by logos or reason and the physical version of logos would be fire. The changing of reality was the one fundamental regularity within the universe and as a result guided Heraclitus to the notion that all things are always in a state of constant flux and the only thing that doesn’t change is change itself. Parmenides’ view on change is very different compared to Heraclitus’ view because Parmenides concluded that something that exists cannot also not exist. Parmenides …show more content…
A great example of Heraclitus’ view would be one of his most famous quotes which is “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” This quote demonstrates his views on change because in this quote he clearly shares his idea of what change really is. He believes that everything is constantly changing for instance the water in the river is flowing and thus it is always changing and as for the person standing in the river, they too have changed because since time passes they are not the same person that stepped into the river. Heraclitus also stated that there is a flux in the universe for everything there is an opposite and that is mentioned in (B88), “the same thing is both living and dead, and the waking and the sleeping, and young and old; for these things transformed are those, and those those transformed back again are these.” These contradictions give us a precise idea of how they are connected to each other; old-young, alive-dead, and asleep-waking up.This quote is an example of how one thing can be changed into …show more content…
Parmenides states that everything that exists is unalterable/unchanging. Parmenides believes that the senses are misleading and the only thing that can get you to the truth is reason. According to Parmenides there are only two logical probabilities which can be found at (B2): “the one, that is and that it is not possible for it not to be, is the path of Persuasion, the other, that is not and that it is right that it not be…” But the second one of these possibilities “that is not and that it is right that it not be”, according to Parmenides, is completely pointless. And as a result it is not a real possibility at all. He makes this claim concerning the second path of “it is not” on the allegation that, "that which is there to be thought or spoken of must be" Parmenides denied change and said that the passing of time was just an illusion. Parmenides argued that in order for change to happen it must advance from being to non-being, since something which was not before is now. An example of this would be, on the off chance that I got taller, I would need to begin from non-tall point and after that change to tall.. But how could something possible come from nothing? That was the whole point of Parmenides’ argument and to some degree it makes
Epictetus says, "Men are disturbed not by things which happen, but by the opinions about the things"(Epictetus, Ch. 5). He is saying that men cannot control things that happen but can control the judgement of that object. Another example of this is when he says, "Disease is an impediment to the body, but not to the will, unless the will chooses." One cannot control what happens, therefore, should not be influenced by external forces. Epictetus maintains the common stoic thought that a happy life is derived from excellence. Marcus was exposed to many schools of thought, growing up in a wealthy family, but had a strong inclination towards Stoicism, especially Epictetus. Marcus writes that man must welcome all that happens, implying that it is out of one's control. He says, "A disposition to welcome all that happens…" Both Marcus and Epictetus have the same idea that one cannot control external forces. They also both write that no-one should be afraid of death. Marcus says that it is not death that one should fear but rather never beginning life. Epictetus says that it is not death or pain that is to be feared, but the fear of pain or death. It is quite prevalent that Marcus was influenced by Epictetus while writing about this specific topic. Reverting back to one's power, Epictetus states, "Within our power are opinion, aim, aversion, and, in one word, whatever affairs are our own"(Epictetus Ch. 1). Epictetus is reiterating the idea that you cannot control what happens around you. There is a similar parallel in the Mediations when Marcus Aurelius says that you have power of your mind - not outside
Problems With Heracles When we talk about something that is problematic, it is usually to do with time. Tales passed through time are often adapted for the societies to which they are being told. This could be in terms of added moral value or just generally adapted to suit the tastes of different cultures. Romans changed the name Heracles to ‘Hercules’ and altered some of his adventures, whereas in Greek the name ‘Heracles’ is often translated to mean ‘glory of Hera’. This could be due to her attempts to destroy him backfiring on her and leading to his glorification by the ancient Greeks.
However, Descartes also still maintains the Aristotelian mindset of an underlying and qualities of that underlying being subject to change as is evidenced in his example of the wax. Yet, it is also in this very example that
The pressure to change has been pivotal in the history of mankind; ‘adapt or die’ was the motto of the early humans, and for good reason. Change is the reason we are bipedal, why we make shelters, why we cook our food; because it’s better, it helps us to survive, to live just long enough to pass on our genes. This unquenchable, insatiable desire to adapt and evolve has driven the human race for millennium and will continue to do so until ignore it and, well, die. The pressure to change surrounds us, it influences our every decision whether it is to create something new, or fix what was broken; as illustrated by the Aeneid and the History of Rome. In the Aeneid, Aeneas is driven for miles in the quest of a new home for the Trojans, a new
He stated that everything is in a state of flux. Everything is constantly moving and changing and there is no such thing as stability. That’s when the quote he’s most famous for comes in, “You cannot step into the same river twice.” At first you may think that it’s a lie because you can physically step into the same river twice, but taking a closer look at it it’s not possible because the water is not the same because when you moved your foot you changed the flow of the water making his statement true. Think about it this way, like the world it connects to the idea of the river; it’s constantly moving. You step again into what seems to be the same river but in reality it is not the same water into which you step. Meaning every day nothing is the same and it’s the start of something
Metaphysical speculation began, long before it was so named, among the presocratic Greeks as an enquiry into cosmology and first principles from two utterly disparate perspectives. The first of these, propounded by Herakleitos, noted the incessant flux (panta rhei) which characterises phenomena; the second, advanced by his contemporary Parmenides, taught the doctrine of a single immutable substance. These rivalling perspectives endure to this day: they announce one of the basic themes on which metaphysics since then has strung up an immense set of variations.
E.g. is a saucer concave or convex; its aspect changes with the viewer’s position. So to say that the saucer is both concave and convex is to talk about the double aspect. What Pythagoras and Heraclitus are impressed with is that there are two aspects to everything in nature. On one hand, everything seems to be in a process of change on the other hand there is order, what we call uniformity of nature, predictability. To think of that change, Heraclitus suggested that the basic element is like fire since fire is always changing (flickering flames – constant change). Yet on the other hand this is an ordered universe, there’s regularity. So you have both change and
“Change has a bad reputation in our society. But it isn’t all bad – not by any means. In fact, change is necessary in life – to keep us moving … to keep us growing … to keep us interested … Imagine life without change. It would be static … boring … dull.”
Another thing that may be found similar between Oedipus and modern life is that people can and do change themselves internally and develop themselves over time. Changes are usually unmotivated. The motivating factor for Oedipus was after he realized that he killed his father, married his mother, and found her...
My whole life, I have been presented to a single element called change. Change occurs in many different forms and is carried out in many different ways. However, just recently, I have come to the realization that change can be the deepest of all subjects. I always assumed that change occured when you moved to a new town or when you lost someone close to you. Those are elements to change, yes, but change doesn't have to occur over a single dramatic event. It can just happen overnight when your brain determines it's time to do something different.
Everything changes - the seasons, friends, goals, dreams, and so much more. It’s understandable to believe that not everything changes, but when you look back on your life you realize change is what got you to where you are today. It has been said, “If nothing ever changed, there would be no butterflies”.
Furthermore, this means that Heraclitus’ concept of change was rejected as there can be no logical explanation because we have to think of something in terms of what it is not. Parmenides starts off with the basic claim of Monism which meant that reality was fundamentally one. We are introduced with two quotes that are supporting claims called premises which seem self-evident. As quoted by Parmenides “What is, is.” and “What is not, is not.” Parmenides basic argument causes the notion of change to become self-contradictory. To elaborate further, change on the level of appearance simply does not occur, this is an illusion. Parmenides reasoning explains that “Nothing exists” is contradictory and his 3 premises of the quotes and monism result in the famous conclusion. Whatever is, is 5 things: Uncreated, indestructible, eternal, and unchangeable. Parmenides explains that the ‘it’ is basic as it is ‘one’ can’t be created or destroyed. Parmenides creates the reduction ad absurdum argument which means assuming the opposite of one’s own belief. To further his argument, he tries to convince us through logical argument (reasoning).
The subject can recognise identity in change because they have a stable identity themselves. A piece of wax that is solid can melt and change into something which appears as different to all senses, yet the mind perceives a consistent identity. The wax is known not by its experiential qualities but is known because of the mind’s perception of it; ‘[One’s] inspection can be imperfect and confused, as it was [when led by sensation and imagination], or it can be clear and distinct - as it is now [that mental scrutiny has been applied]’ (Descartes, 2006, 31). Consequently, he does not doubt the innate ability of the mind to perceive, even if the wax is illusory. This gives more information about the mind and its nature than it does of the external world and the body (Descartes, 2006.
However, it is notoriously difficult to say what an ever-changing universe has to do with an unchanging Reality. Additionally, the contingent world we know is morally and aesthetically imperfect, to say the least. It follows that Reality, by contrast, must be supremely good and beautiful. This strand goes right back to Plato, and the idea that there exists a world that is more ‘real’ and more ‘true’ and the ‘so-called’ real world we inhabit in our embodied state. This is the world of the perfect Forms, but their relation to the particulars of which they are the Forms is difficult to describe adequately. How can two things that have absolutely nothing in common be related to each other in any way
...erything is subject to change, although some things may last longer than others. The other basic principle of Buddhism is according to which nothing occurs due to pure chance. Besides natural forces, it is the karma, which leads to the occurrence of all events.