Heraclites V. Parmenides

Philosophy serves one purpose, bringing order to reason. This, on so many levels can organize ones way of thinking into a structured manner; therefore rendering it much easier for one to conclude solid conclusions, thereby avoiding error.

There have been many independent streams of philosophy from several different parts of the world, such as China, and India. But the most popular school of thought that has created the most impact on the United States, without a doubt would have to be the ancient Greeks (who by the way started philosophy in a fashion of independent religion).

Skipping straight ahead to two of philosophies great philosophers: Heraclitus (540-480 B.C), and one of the most miss-understood, Parmenides (515-440 B.C.). These two philosophers took philosophy to a new level; from trying to understand our changing world, to trying to understand change itself.

If the search for a fundamental substance was to ever progress, it would have to face the inevitable problem of change. In other words, what remains the same when everything else changes of a particular thing? Change "appears "to be a fundamental character in nature/life. Our experiences tell us that things are definitely in motion (moving) and changing (becoming different) every moment of every day. But however, the question still arrives, what remains the same throughout this process? The two key solutions (in my opinion one) comes from these two well thought philosophers. Like I said, only one has a solid conclusion in which I agree.

Parmenides spoke deeply when he said, "being is; and non-being, is not".

Parmenides base philosophy was that change was simply an illusion. It was perfectly clear to him that the world appeared to be in a constant state of flux; more so though he believed that our senses deceived us. The fundamental substance is being. And in order to reconcile the perpetual change he perceived with his senses; he reasoned that nothing comes from nothing, and that all existing comes from something pre-existing. Parmenides took for granted that the world had always existed, therefore, being must have always existed, and ultimately will always exist. Being is an eternal state he said.

Now comes Heraclitus with the philosophy that everything changes, and nothing stays the same. Diametrically opposed to that of which Parmenides stands for. Heraclitus firmly believed in his assumption that everything changed. He believed becoming was the root to all things. And one of his famous phrases was, "one never steps into the same