The Greek Philosophers were intrigued by the problem of change. Simply stated, the problem is thus: can the ultimate reality be something that changes? Intuitively, we would think that this could not be the case, for how can one consider something that is changeable ultimate? Most philosophers agreed that the ultimate reality was changeless, but conflicted on whether that changeless nature was transmitted from the ultimate reality to the physical reality we see. Heraclites, Parmenides, and later Greek philosophers focused on this problem, as their primary goal was to understand ultimate reality.
Heraclites was the earliest philosopher to consider this problem extensively. He adopted the view that change was everywhere and preeminent. It is unclear whether he thought that the underlying matter was always the same, but it is clear that he though all existence was based on the conflict between opposites, and the constant state of flux. He is quoted as saying, “It should be understood that war is the common condition, that strife is justice, and that all things come to pass through the compulsion of strife” (Heraclites). He also said, “Homer was wrong in saying, ‘Would that strife might perish from amongst gods and men.’ For if that were to occur, then all things would cease to exist” (Heraclites). So then, his position was that reality is founded on strife, on the dialectic nature of existence. Reality is a constant cycle. His most famous statement notes that all is changing: “We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and are not” (Heraclitus, “139”). A similar quotation is this: “ Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow” (Cohen, “Heraclitus”). Thus, Heraclites noted the difference between a river and the same river, at two successive moments. Is it really the same river? He thought not. The ultimate consequences of this “all is change” philosophy Heraclites did not seem to address. Brother Francis discusses these:
If this doctrine of Heraclitus is true, then neither science is possible nor philosophy. Even when science talks about change it must talk about what is permanent in it. If nothing is permanent about reality, then there can be no scientific knowledge about it. If Heraclitus himself failed to draw all the latent conclusions of his doctrine, his disciples certainly perceived all its logical implications. When one of them, named Cratyles, was asked: "And what then should the philosopher do, if, as you say, all is change?" he replied, "The wise man simply wiggles his finger!" There is no use making any philosophical statements, if before you finish uttering your assertion, all reality has changed, and the assertion no longer applies. (Francis, 1997)
It appears, then, that Heraclites went a bit too far in this doctrine of flux, though it is true that all that we know about his views is fragmentary.
Parmenides, on the other hand, swung to the opposite extreme. He stated that nothing could not be, and yet still be thought about. He argued that all was one (he was a monist) and that all time was one as well; all simply is. Since something can never come from nothing, Parmenides tried to expand that to prohibit change: if something comes into being, that means that what it came from, its materials, no longer exist as such, while the thing comes from “non-thingness.” And this, he said, was a logical impossibility.
The decision on these matters depends on this: either it is or it is not. But it has been decided, as is necessary, to let go the one as unthinkable and unnameable (for it is no true path), but to allow the other, so that it is, and is true. How could what-is be in the future? How could it come-to-be? For if it came-to-be, it is not, nor is it if at some time it is going to be. Thus, coming-to-be is extinguished and perishing unheard of. (Parmenides)
Parmenides believed that ultimate reality was changeless, but that also, because the entire universe was one, that changelessness also had to be evident in the entire universe. Logically, this is reasonable enough, but were his premises correct? No. In particular, he has an either/or fallacy present: either a thing can come being or non-being. The first is impossible, in that a thing cannot come from itself, and the second is impossible as well. But these are not the only two options. “But Parmenides has overlooked the possibility that a thing can come into existence from something else. This would be neither from itself, nor from nothing; since it would be from a different being, it would, in a way, be both from a being and from a not-being. It would come into existence from a different being, and from not having itself previously existed” (Cohen, “Parmenides”). This is the logical problem with Parmenides argument. Parmenides also thought, because nothing can come into existence or go out of existence, that it followed that time is not, for past, present, and future are all the same. From this, he deduced that change of any type is impossible. Of course, there is the common-sense problem with the argument as well—everyone has personal experience with change, and has seen it in action. But Parmenides favored logic over our physical experience, and dismissed that as well. From our point of view, there are two errors with Parmenides’ views: logical fallacies, and the discounting of practical experience.
Aristotle presented a more logically sound opinion on the nature of change. He stated that change happened between a pair of opposites, like hot and cold. How? He took the middle road that Parmenides rejected: something can come from something else. This doctrine was called “potentiality and actuality.” These, were considered as opposite ends of a spectrum: what it is now, and what it naturally becomes. Thus, an acorn is at this moment an acorn, but possesses the potential to become a tree. The natural movement, Aristotle said, was for each thing to actualize its potential, for the acorn to grow into a tree. “Change can occur between potential being and actual being without nonbeing ever entering the picture” (Lindberg, 1992). This removes the problem of being coming from nonbeing, which Parmenides correctly noted was impossible. Aristotle’s approach emphasized natural laws as ultimate, that the change of a thing is limited to its nature. This understanding of change is more agreeable than that of Parmenides, both from a logical point of view, and from a common sense approach.
The problem of change was of great interest to the ancient philosophers, because of their search for the ultimate reality. They desired to find that which did not change, because that would be ultimate reality. The earliest, Heraclites, denied the existence of anything unchanging. Parmenides, conversely, denied the existence of change itself. Aristotle limited change to the actualization of potential, restricting it to a dialectic. His view, and its common sense approach to change, became a basis of western philosophical thought for the next 1500 years.
References
Parmenides of Elea (c.a. 475 BC) On Nature. Edited by Allan Randall. Accessed online at http://home.ican.net/~arandall/Parmenides/ on September 16, 2005
Lindberg, David C. (1992) The Beginnings of Western Science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992.
Cohen, S. Marc (2003) “Parmenides, Stage 1” Philosophy 320 Lecture Notes. Accessed online at http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm on September 16, 2005
Cohen, S. Marc (2002) “Heraclitus” Philosophy 320 Lecture Notes. Accessed online at http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/heracli.htm on September 16, 2005
Francis, Brother The Problem of Change: a Mystery of the Natural Order. Accessed online at http://www.catholicism.org/pages/probchang.htm on September 16, 2005
Heraclites Heraclites – The Fragments. A collection of fragments of Heraclites’ work. Accessed online at http://ratmachines.com/philosophy/heraclites/ on September 16, 2005
Heraclitus Heraclitus: 139 Fragments. Translated by John Burnet, 1892. Accessed online at http://philoctetes.free.fr/heraclitus.htm on September 16, 2005