I'm currently researching the differences between Heraclitus' and Parmenides' arguments. I know that Parmenides believed that change was implossible and that everything was permanent, but not much else.
2006-11-23 08:14:27 · 4 answers · asked by Kiera S 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
there is not much different
2006-11-23 08:21:51 · answer #1 · answered by todd s 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only The One exists.There is no many...
That is The way of Truth.
The Way of Opinions of mortals, the change, deal with appearance...
Here is the answer. Parmenides spokes of the Encompassing...
The One is encompasing. In It is all. Even the change...
"...all is full of what is..." And change, too, is... Is there from "always"...
It is a part of One... Then Heraklitus speak about the same thing as Parmenides...
You can see for that Heidegger' Introduction to Metaphysics...
Sure, there are yet much more problems...for example the problem of Time...which is unreal, an illusion... But for response, here and now, there exist even the science of our days...
Actually, this science says all that Parmenides said...
See inseparability, holographic universe, quantum coherence....
mircea george
2006-11-27 05:51:00 · answer #2 · answered by mircea d 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Parmenides believed everything is permanent, being there is no actual change. Still he believed that nature can trick the senses of the physical, leading to the changes we see. He believed in the mental or reason not the physical senses.
Heraclitus believed more in the physical senses. In that everything is at a constant rate of change. This change is caused by opposing opposites that without both existing simultaneously the world would not exist. This balance is the universal law of nature.
2006-11-23 16:32:07 · answer #3 · answered by weism 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes indeed. It is the way you say it.
Heraclitus proclaimed that everything changes ("water of a flowing river in two separate moments of time is not the same") while Parmenides stated the opposite: there is no change because it means that movement implies to reach the goal on the other side as equivalent to reach half the span and then to reach half of the half of the span, and then half of the half of the half of the span, etc, with the result that you can not move from where you start!
I know that it sounds like Zeno paradox but it is that way because Zeno was in fact a disciple of Parmenides.
That is what I remember from my history classes.
That´s it!
Good luck!
2006-11-23 16:27:15 · answer #4 · answered by CHESSLARUS 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋