The to a great extent studied philosophical argument that has been carried for centuries on the nature of being and the perceptual experience of it. displays the huge differences between the two philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. One which believed in a uniqueness of things. while one differs and carries the doctrine of a dichotomy of world. One that believes that the alterations in perceptual experience are fallacious. while the other displays a philosophical position that our perceptual experiences basically comparative and ever altering based one of nature. One believes that world and nature is changeless. while the other believes that everything is invariably altering. and that even the fluxing river that one may step his pes in will non be the same river the following clip around.
Heraclitus believed things were ever-changing. and that may be true. Science and natural philosophies ( which is an arm of doctrine Tells us that when force is applied to things there is the possibility of a alteration in the molecular make up of the point. It is like a amorphous affair. Once the affair has been molded into a peculiar signifier it is more than probably to lose atoms during the procedure. I believe the illustration of the fluxing river is a reasonably cagey one. Bing that the river is of all time fluxing there is changeless eroding happening as the invariable ( the bed of the river ) interacts with the moving ( the flow of the H2O ) . In actuality even the little Acts of the Apostless such as agitating custodies involves the exchange of atoms and molecules.
Parmenides presented a conflicting philosophical sentiment to that of Heraclitus. Parmenides presented the position that the province of being in nature is changeless. It does non alter and that our perceptual experience of world may at times be really fallacious. While I do non hold with this in respects to the province of being and nature I do believe this statement would keep much weight and would be considered a solid truth in footings of psychological science. A person’s psychological make-up could really good impact the manner a individual views world. and could show falsities. One of Parmenides’ most popular statement of that something that is non can non be practicably proven as it is non in a province of being. I would reason that it could merely as the opposite of something that is.
While both have left a longing feeling on the western doctrine and we are still reasoning the same argument that they did today. I would hold to hold with the statement of Heraclitus on the subject of the position of being. Thingss are ever altering ; we live with gravitation which in itself causes us to alter. without it we would non age about every bit rapidly as we do. I find the difference in the statement in the dichotomy and changeless being of nature to be one of a affair from a modern position as looking at things from a macro and micro position.
On the macro side things look the same and unchanged as it takes drastic force or influence to alter things. but on the micro degree even the little of Acts of the Apostless cause for a strong motion of atoms. I would hold to hold with Heraclitus. although Parmenides does show a really valid statement when placed in proper context.