Comparison Of Parmenides’ And Heraclitus’ Views Of Metaphysics

While metaphysics aims to explain the notions between the physical and intellectual world, philosophers such as Heraclitus and Parmenides introduced two different notions about the nature of being. How may it be that two great minds arrive at two such different notions? While Parmenides and Heraclitus had distinct ideas about the nature of being, the notion of change and constant shifting was at the forefront of distinguishing these great thinkers.

Parmenides raised the question of nonbeing. “That is and that it is not possible for it not to be”. Parmenides had a unique understanding about being. How could one know what nonbeing is without knowing what being is. Parmenides was unlike many thinkers in his time. He distinguished this idea about being and nonbeing very interestingly. He claims that it is possible to know about being because we can contemplate it and have knowledge about it. But for us to be non-beings would not be possible. This is because being is a necessity. Being is immovable, continuous, imperishable, and indestructible. It cannot perish because it always is. Being cannot move because there is no nonbeing. How could one say that there is nonbeing when there is no change that can occur from being? That would be ones opinion rather than truth. And for Parmenides, he invites us to move closer to the truth. What exist is by virtue of necessity. Were would change come from that would allow for change to occur. There cannot be freedom if everything that exists does so by necessities. Parmenides criticizes our perception of reality. What we perceive as movement is simply what we perceive. But for Parmenides, our perception can be reduced to a simpler form. Everything that exist can be thought pure and simply. And it must be eternal because if being as such became, it would have had to emerge from nothing that which is the opposite of being. But then the question arises that how could something emerge from nothing?

Parmenides finds it necessary to speak and think what is, for being is but nothing is not. We cannot think nothing so there is this relationship between being and thinking. For Parmenides, it is our perception that allows us to follow us to falsehood. “It is right that you learn all things-both the unshaken heart of well-persuasive truth and the beliefs of mortals, in which there is no true trust”. If we were to follow the way of truth, we would realize that there is only being. When there is nothing but being, there is nothing but being according to Parmenides philosophy.

As for Heraclitus, his philosophical work brings about the notion of logos and fire. Logos in particular is something common but many people have their own opinions about it. Therefore in having their own understanding, they lose sight of the truth. Heraclitus differentiates himself by understanding that the world is in permanent state of change. The actual conflict of opposites correlates with the idea that change is constantly occurring. One of Heraclitus’ most famous propositions, “we step into and we do not step into the same rivers. We are and we are not” aims to illustrate how reality is change and flow. We cannot step into the same river because the river is constantly changing. When we step into the river a second time, we step into different water and therefore is a different river. The main idea behind this beautiful metaphor is that the river is constantly changing, and so are you. Hence, “we are and are not”. How are we to think we are the same person we once were when we were children? We are constantly growing and dying all the time. What makes us is our identity, which doesn’t change. Change itself is what only remains the same and what makes our nature of being. As for in the pre-Socratic, Heraclitus used fire as the symbol of change. Fire contains properties that destroys things and also has the ability to rekindle things. Something might perish but also emerge due to fire. As Parmenides insist, in “changing it rest”. While it might be unclear to what Parmenides is exactly referring to, I lead to believe that he refers to the universe. If changed seized to happen, existence would also seize to happen. As for Parmenides, the universe is dependent on change for existence. Change is what makes all things one and it is the conflict between all things that connects all things. The truth or the logos is that change itself is what makes the world what it is.

While we see two of the most influential thinkers diverge from initially the same place to very irreconcilable positions, I favor Heraclitus’ position on being. We as human beings are changing uncontrollable. Our cells are going through apoptosis while regenerating at distinct rates. However, what is left through this change is our identity. What makes life what it is, is thru death. It is through our non-being that our being becomes things. It’s distinctly the relationship between existence and nonexistence that constitutes the one, the all. More importantly, “the all” is known through logos. The absolute truth. While Parmenides argument about the being and nonbeing were convincing at times, Heraclitus’ invites the thinker into a world of fire. That is that, fire is the main idea through which everything proceeds. It was through his creativity that the thinker like myself was able to grasp a true meaning of the world from his perspective and ideas. As for Heraclitus’, fire resembles the constant change that occurs in the universe.