Heraclitus and Parmenides both attempt to answer a seemingly simple but complex question about change: Is change real? Their answers lie in opposing sides of the discussion since Heraclitus believes change to be possible, while Parmenides denies the concept of change. Heraclitus believes that all things flow and are part of cycles in which they change, becoming what they are not. He also believes in a circular flow of change, explaining that some processes yield the same result with which it started. Parmenides argues that change isn’t possible because, in order for change to occur, something has to come from nothing, and nothing doesn’t exist. I believe that Heraclitus is right about change because, like he argues, nature is full
…show more content…
To justify the conclusion that things flow and change, he uses the river analogy, in which he asserts that "We step into and we do not step into the rivers. We are and we are not" (B49a). He's arguing that if we were to step into a river for a second time, not only will the river have changed due to its incessant flow, but we will have changed as well. In addition to flow, Heraclitus believes that "The beginning and the end are common on the circumference of a circle," giving way to his claims about the cyclical nature of change (B103). As part of this cycle, things become what they are not, for example, "For souls to become water is to die; for water to become earth is to die; but from earth, water comes to be; from water, soul" (B36). In this particular excerpt, Heraclitus is alluding to not only the cyclical, but the circular nature of change, in which one thing, such a soul, goes through a process of death and change, only for another soul to be created. Furthermore, Heraclitus uses symbols, such as fire, to further develop his views of the nature of change. Fire is significant because it is transformative as it changes what is to what it is not. It also part of processes that change the phases of things; turning cold water hot, wood into
To justify the conclusion that things flow and change, he uses the river analogy, in which he asserts that "We step into and we do not step into the rivers. We are and we are not" (B49a). He's arguing that if we were to step into a river for a second time, not only will the river have changed due to its incessant flow, but we will have changed as well. In addition to flow, Heraclitus believes that "The beginning and the end are common on the circumference of a circle," giving way to his claims about the cyclical nature of change (B103). As part of this cycle, things become what they are not, for example, "For souls to become water is to die; for water to become earth is to die; but from earth, water comes to be; from water, soul" (B36). In this particular excerpt, Heraclitus is alluding to not only the cyclical, but the circular nature of change, in which one thing, such a soul, goes through a process of death and change, only for another soul to be created. Furthermore, Heraclitus uses symbols, such as fire, to further develop his views of the nature of change. Fire is significant because it is transformative as it changes what is to what it is not. It also part of processes that change the phases of things; turning cold water hot, wood into