Argumentative Essay Comparing The Very Basics Of Parmenides And Heraclitus

Heraclitus – Parmenides Comparison

Both Heraclitus and Parmenides, along all the pre-socratics, mark the beginning of the history of philosophy. They were the first individuals to seek an explanation for the universe, and to immerse themselves in a voyage towards the true meaning of being. Independently, each attempted to discover the underlying truths behind what we call the world. Atfirst glance, they seem to have arrived to completely opposite understanding of reality. On one side, Heraclitus claims that the logos is composed of ever-changing matter, which our senses disguise and trick us into thinking that they are stable. The notion of stable bodies is only an illusion: matter is always in motion, in an eternal process of becoming. Parmenides, on the other hand, tells usthat the universe is one, eternal, and unchanging. Through denying that the non-being is possible, he proposes a static world. However, centuries after these two thinkers came to their conclusions, a new argument has arisen, which states that Heraclitus and Parmenides are in fact referring to the same concepts. Even though they seem contradictory, the argument goes, the universe of the two havecommon underlying principles. In this paper, I argue against this notion, convinced that their pioneer philosophical spirit is one of the few characteristics they have in common.
Heraclitus’ philosophy is based in the principle of opposition. He claims that beneath every existence there is a harmony between opposites, and moreover, that it is that very same harmony which allows anything toexist. Therefore, good and evil are equal and equally necessary for the being. As a practical example, Heraclitus would say that one cannot fully understand health or a healthy state unless one has experienced the lack of that state by being sick. It is the opposition what allows for any conception to exist to its fullest extent. Furthermore, he claims that everything is in constant motion. Heportrays the world as a place where “everything flows and nothing abides; everything gives way and nothing stays fixed” (fragment 20), and where “cool things become warm, the warm grows cool; the moist dries, the parched becomes moist.” There is no such thing as a stationary state, for motion is the factor that allows for the opposites to interact, and give rise to the universe. At the end, it all comesdown to motion and opposition.
Parmenides, in contrast, provides a picture based entirely on the absence of motion. His philosophy is based on a universe that simply is. In his own words, “what is has no beginning and never will be destroyed: it is whole, still, and without end. It neither was nor will be, it simply is – now, altogether, one, continuous” (7A). More specifically, hisdefinition of being is based on the absence of non-existence. He argues that being and thought are one and the same, for a concept that is thought but is not present in the physical world is still present in the mind. Therefore, since everything that is conceivable by the mind exists, it is impossible to express the non-existence, and hence non-existence does not exist.
One of the arguments for asimilar philosophy between Heraclitus and Parmenides appeals to a global perspective on Heraclitus’ argument. In fragment 69, he states that “the way up and the way down are one and the same.” This implies that the composition of objects in the universe, which is created by a constant flow of opposites, follows a pattern. Opposing principles flow from one corner of the logos to the other and thenall the way back in the same manner. For this reason, the underlying current of principles tends to form a cycle, a closed system, where the way up and the way down are one and the same. The cycle as a whole, however, is a static entity. It has no past or future, for the logos is only one and eternally valid. The interaction between opposites changes creating different bodies, but the underlying...