What to make of change?
This week, we learned that two of the Presocratics we are studying, Heraclitus and Parmenides, have very different views about “change.” Heraclitus says everything is always changing while Parmenides says change is impossible. Which view feels closer to your experience and why?
Example 1
Heraclitus’s views on change align with my experience; however, I do understand how Parmenides’s view is also valid. After reading up on both of their personal takes on change, I have concluded that both can be correct at the same time. However that is really hard to explain how and argue for that. Therefore, I have decided to lean more on Heraclitus’s view on change. One analogy he made was about how you cannot step into the same river twice because the water is always flowing and changing. In the same way, we never see the same clouds, breathe the same particles of air, etc. He also states that the universe creates unity and balance through opposing laws called Logos. Examples of opposites would be war and peace, day and night, and life and death. Then there is order, which creates balance in the universe. This feels closer to my experience because change has always been a part of my life when it comes to every aspect of my existence, and it has made me appreciative of the moment I had the pleasure of experiencing. Because I knew somehow that this moment would never exist ever again. However, that singular moment lives eternally in my memories because it was seen, therefore known. The reason why I speak in such a poetic way is that we experience the world through our own perspectives.
The reason I can see why Parmenides’ theory can also be correct is that nothing that exists can have existed and always will exist because it has existed. This is because nothing in the universe is either created or destroyed but changed. What he says is that something cannot come from nothing, “what is, is, and what is not, is not”. I think the middle ground of where both theories can be true is that yes, things do change, but that is because it was supposed to. Within chaos, there is an order that our universe follows. The laws of the universe say that nothing is created nor destroyed, so it was meant to be here. And there is no chance for something existed that cannot or could exist.
The universe is such a mystery, and from my own experience in life, sometimes multiple things can be true at the same time, and there is just too much gray area to say one possibility is impossible. Here are some of the questions I had to think about when comparing these two theories.
[Why would time exist if not to create room for change to happen? If change did not exist, then wouldn’t we be born perfect in a perfect world? If there is no possibility of an end, then would there be a purpose for a beginning?]
Example 2
The process of understanding my grandparents gives me a deeper understanding of how everything changes. They tell stories about life before smartphones. Their world experienced a slower pace. All aspects of their existence transitioned into a digital format. The transformation occurred within a single generation. Heraclitus would probably smile at that. The world never stops moving. The existence of technology demonstrates that everything undergoes permanent transformation. The traditions of my family demonstrate that I understand Parmenides’ argument. My family still gathers for the same holiday dinner every year. The same food is prepared by us. Some values remain unchanged. I perceive my life experience to resemble Heraclitus’ teachings. I cannot deny the evidence around me. Time advances as everything in existence maintains its distinctiveness.
Example 3
This is a really interesting perspective, and a good way to ground Parmenides thought process in something tangible to our daily experience. I agree that although we observe changes, we also have a broader sense of continuity over our lifetime.
Your comment also made me think more generally about how we experience change in many properties but stability in others. Parmenides seemed to discount our sensations in general, but I wonder if he would consider the things we experience in an unchanging way, like memory and personality, to be more “pure” or closer to his concept of Being relative to the more transient aspects of life, like the weather or colors.
Example 3
I find Heraclitus view of change closer to my personal experience because when I look at my life, it has been nothing but change. My habits are different, my mindset has shifted, and the roles Ive stepped into over the years have reshaped how I see myself and the world. I am not the same in behavior, perspective, or daily routine as I was years ago. In that sense, Heraclitus feels right, life feels like a river that is always moving. Even when I think Ive found stability, something eventually shifts, whether internally or externally.
At the same time, I cant completely ignore Parmenides. Even though everything around me changes, and even though my thoughts evolve, there is still a sense that I am the same person underneath it all. I can look back at earlier versions of myself and still recognize that I was there. So while change feels real and constant, there also seems to be some deeper continuity holding it together. If I had to choose, I would say Heraclitus feels closer to my lived experience because I constantly witness change in myself and in life, but I also understand why Parmenides believed something more permanent must exist beneath it.
Requirements: Follow