I know according to the agenda we shouldn't be reading Parmenides until Wednesday but for a reason I will divulge to you on Monday, I expect all of you to have read the fragments of Parmenides for the next class.
As for the question of the day, big drum roll please, I want you to tell me how Parmenides and Heraclitus are opposed in their philosophical thinking but also be sure to pinpoint how they may coincide in their thought.
Finally for class discussion I want all of you to be able to summarize what we have learned from the Pre-Socratics thus far. Be sure that you can show knowledge of at least two or three relevant features of each of these philosophers by having quotes from their fragments ready to hand. Also, to tie together how these old dead white guys are still relevant to each of our lives, I would appreciate if all of you found a way to relate at least one of the philosophers to your major.
Have a nice weekend,
Dr. Layne
The biggest opposition between Heraclitus and Parmenides is the idea of change. Change is being's form of progression or regression according to Heraclitus. (62.It is not possible to step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow). Parmenides believes if something exists it is true and will always exist. (9.Bit since all things have been named light and night and the things which accord with their powers have been assigned to these things and those…)
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus and Parmenides are nearly opposite in philisophical theory. Heraclitus says the the main characteristic of the universe is that it changes, as evidenced by some of his famous fragments such as "...never step into the same river twice." He also stressed the duality of opposites and plurality in the universe.
ReplyDeleteParmindes says that the senses and perceptions of man are false, and that the universe is one unified, unchanging thing.
However, they do have one thing in common. They both believe that the only way to truth is through logos, or the way.
In the reading Parmenides continually repeats himself in describing how the universe is unchanging: "How could what is be in the future? How could it come to be? For if it came into being, it is not, nor if it is ever going to be"(8). Parmenides also stresses "to direct your sightless eye and sounding ear and tongue, but judge by reason the heavily contested testing spoken by me"(7), urging the reader to view things that are in a different way.
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus often brings up change in these passages: "Cold things grow hot, a hot thing cold, a moist thing withers, a parched thing is wetted"(66). "The cosmos, the same for all...was always and is and shall be: an ever-living fire being kindled in measures and being extinguished in measures"(74). The cosmos is viewed as a living fire being, constantly growing but also dying, kindled but also extinguished.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus believed things are constantly changing and that there is a unity between opposites. A quote that exemplifies his belief is, “67.) The same thing is both living and dead, and the waking and the sleeping, and young and old; for these things transformed are those, and those transformed back again are these.” Parmenides believed that all things are not changing. A quote of Parmenides, “5.)From where I am to begin; for to there shall I come back again.” The philosophies seem to be opposites of each other, but upon closer look there is a similarity in which each is trying to describe the art of being. The philosophers are trying to explain what happens with life? Heraclitus proposes it follows a cycle.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteParmenides and Heraclitus are different in their philosophical thought in the sense that one (Heraclitus) believes the world is an ever changing place (i.e., "you can never step into the same river twice) while Parmenides, in "The Poem", makes it clear that reality is one and unchanging.
ReplyDeleteThey are the same, however, in both of their attempts to explain this world and we creatures who inhabit it. Although not of the same mind on virtually any matter of philosophy, I suppose the willingness to risk their name being scrutinized in the public eye for "ideas" is a noble similarity between the "two old dead white men".
Heraclitus espouses faith. As in fragment eight, "Divine things for the part escape recognition because of unbelief." I interpret Heraclitus as one who, though sees significant value in the tangible, understands that "nature loves to hide."
ReplyDeleteParamenidies goddess reveals something different."For the same thing is for thinking and for being,"- to hide- is to essentially not be. One should not just assume that the truth is concealed. The essence of all things are there to be gazed upon, if not loosely under one's nose, than securely present in one's thoughts.
While Heraclitus and Parmenides both discuss the topic of the cosmos, they disagree on how change operates in it. Heraclitus declares that change is ever-present in the universe by calling it a unity of opposites. Parmenides claims that the existence of the cosmos is stagnant. They are similar in the way that Heraclitus declares the universe being a unity, where change does not occur, but rather acts as a cycle. This cycle relates to Parmenides' stagnation
ReplyDeleteLike many philosophers, both Heraclitus and Parmenides believe that their method of understanding the world is the only true path to knowledge. However, the similarities end there. While Heraclitus believes in the quasi-Taoist of the unity of opposites, Parmenides believes that, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, there is literally nothing new under the sun
ReplyDeleteAs for how these philosophies apply to my major (journalism, I can honestly state from experience that the more things change (Heraclitus), the more things stay the same (Parmenides). Technologies may evolve over time and older ones may become obsolete, but the same basic practices and ethics still apply.
Heraclitus and Parmenides are almost completely opposed in their philosophical thinking. Parmenides argues that the universe is unchanging , whereas Heraclitus argues that the universe is always changing. Heraclitus’ theories centers on the identity of opposites and its unity, while Parmenides focuses on beings as they are instead of what they are not. They intersect in thought through Parmenides central believe of the unchanging universe and Heraclitus belief in logos as the single unchanging law of the universe and if you understand the logos you understand the workings of the cosmos.
ReplyDeleteBoth Heraclitus and Parmenides say that humans tend to believe before they apply rational reasoning to the great questions of the universe. However for Heraclitus, answers can be reasoned through witnessing the cycles of life, or its opposites. He writes that there is both dark and light, both waking and sleeping, etc., because both exist in this one world. He applies rational thought to what he sees in life. He sees that both man and earth have opposites, and thus work in harmony to create one universe.
ReplyDeleteParmenides completely disagrees with the idea of opposites, which is unusual for a modern Western philosopher. Science, Mathematics, and the origins of all logic as we know it: are based on opposites: light and dark, positive and negative, good and evil/right and wrong. What Heraclitus argues is that every person has both good and evil, just as the world has both light and dark. Parmenides argues, about less tangible topics, that Truths MUST be whole, unchanging, unmoving, undivided, etc., and ideas that are not able to be seen, as in, those in the head, are not trustworthy for reason to digest as logical.
One thing that continuously sticks out to me between both Heraclitus and Parmenides is truth and genuine unity. As stated in the text, Heraclitus believes that "opposites are a genuine unity, so that what is both is and is not (pg 35)." On the other hand, there is Parmenides argues that "genuine though and knowledge can be only about what is, for what is not is literally unsayable and unthinkable (pg 35." Both knowledge and thought are combined into a genuine unity and neither can exist without having been revealed. Heraclitus says that they can be real because what is and is will unify. However, Parmenides disagrees with that theory. Parmenides theory about opposites not unifying is what results in the separation of mortals truth from the truth of the goddess. What makes me think is that in the passage, even the goddess tells him that he must "assess the arguments she gives." If it "sure and certain" and if that of a mortals opinion is not true, then why should he believe the goddess (in whom, we have seen in previous texts are known to lie)? The two coincide with a belief in the cosmos, its rules and its being.
ReplyDeleteBasically Parmenides and Heraclitus differ in viewpoints because of the fact that Parmenides believes that man and the world is not capable of change as it is unchanging and human beings as well as the world are all one force that are the same.
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus on the other hand feels that the universe, the world, and people are always constantly changing as new ideas are being born and just like the quote i picked in class on Friday says, "The sun is new each day"
They do seem to share the viewpoint about logos and change (or lack of) is the balance that keeps things in check.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe the most general difference in Heraclitus' and Parmenides' viewpoints is that while Heraclitus believes there is a cosmological hierarchy in the universe, one in which humans act as the "middle ground" between the natural and the divine; Parmenides believes that there is only opposition between two extremes (sun and moon), and that humans exist solely as an extension of this universal opposition. While Heraclitus' view seems to revolve around human existence being necessitated only by flux and one's "ever-increasing self," Parmenides' focuses mostly on the circular nature of all existence, in that beginnings and ends, like the linearity that Heraclitus' view suggests, are simply illusions. In fact, he posits that "it all is alike [...] [and] it is without start or finish." However, they do seem to agree that opposition is the root of creation, and that change is essentially necessitated by our existence (and of course, vice versa).
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus believed that the universe was constantly changing, nothing ever had the same identity. He was also believed that there is unity in opposites, basically you can’t have one without the other. (i.e. hot and cold, night and day and good and bad) Parmenides, on the other hand, believed that the universe never changed and shamed Heraclitus belief that there is unity in opposites. The only thing these two philosophers seemed to agree on was the logos.
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus and Parmendides differ in the way they see man and the universe. Heraclitus believes that the universe and man are forever changing. On the other hand, Parmendides believes contray to that belief. Parmendides believes that the universe and man are always constant. Heraclitus and Parmendides polar opposite beliefs in a way coincide with one another. Man and history are ever changing but some things are constant such as time. Gravity is one example of a constant where as evolution is an example of something in the world that is ever changing(however slow it may be).
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus and Parmenides differ in the idea that the truth. Heraclitus believes in the idea of opposites being a genuine unity. Parmenides does not believe in this. Instead he considers it to be complete and unchanging. Parmenides seems to hold a view of the world as being unchanging for the most part. Heraclitus however is more open to the idea of change than Parmenides. They both agree though that change is necessary for understanding, but Parmenides is more constrained about it while Heraclitus is more open to it.
ReplyDeleteWhile both of these philosophers studied and taught around the same time period, their worldviews and understanding of the cosmos are very different. The concepts that these philosophers really differ on is that of time and change. Parmenides sees time as unchanging and nearly nonexistent. Though a fascinating idea, it is one that I find to be of little practicality and modern value. However, it is important to understand this idea before interpreting the rest of his work. While Parmenides believed time to be unchanging, it was this change that Heraclitus stressed to be most crucial. The teachings of both philosophers were heavily derived from their differing understandings of the untangible and the unknowable.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest difference between Heraclitus and Parmenides is their views on change. Heraclitus believes that everything is forever changing. This is evident in fragment 63 (We step into and we do not step into the same rivers. We are and we are not). Heraclitus also stressed the idea of opposites. Parmenides believed that all things are unchanging. For example, in fragment 5, he says, "And it is all common to me, From where I am to begin; for to there shall I come back again".Heraclitus also stressed the idea of opposites. Parmenides says that true beings are changeless.
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus and Parmenides are similar because both seek to find the truth of the cosmos. They both agree that understanding the world, (its operation) is necessary. Their debate is whether the cosmos is changing or unchanging. Heraclitus stresses that change in cycles is a part of life, while Parmenides claims that things are constant and do not change. To Parmenides, humans depend more on their experiences and the continualness of life. He states, “How and from where did it grow? I will not permit you to say or to think that it grew from what is not; for it is not to be said or thought that it is not.” (8)
ReplyDeleteI believe that Heraclitus and Parmenides are opposites in their philosophical thought because they both don't agree on truth and change in the universe. Hercalitus believed that universe is always changing or progressing and whatever is new or seemingly more advanced is truth. Parmenides is more of a traditionalist, he believes that anything that has been accepted and already exists is truth. Despite there unsimilarites, however, both philosophers believe in some kind of logos that unifies all people in the universe.
ReplyDeleteSome of Heraclitus’ fragments are debatable yet legitimate, all of them seemingly ambiguous and open to interpretation. He attests change and becoming when as he states, "Other and other waters touch those who go into the same river," a characteristic saying of Heraclitus claiming that a logical thought embraces physical, everyday terms--water, a stream, a body. Change and becoming are equivalent to life and death: being is conquered by not-being as is the reverse, a quality is overthrown by the contrary, and so the cosmos, always becoming, is a terrain of continuous conflict: "War is the father and king of all things, it shows some as gods, some as men, it makes some freemen and others slaves."
ReplyDeleteThe becoming of the cosmos is denoted in physical terms: fire dies and is transformed into air, air subsides and is converted into water, water recedes to become earth, and so on, an alteration between life and death amongst varying elements which would still not be referred to "a process," because "process" implies a ongoing forward movement, whereas Heraclitus maintains, in majority of his fragments, that this progression of transformations in the cosmos ensues both directions. Quoting Heraclitus, "The way up and the way down are one and the same." This is his most profound insight: “all becoming is circular” (notice that, indeed, in a circle the way up and the way down are one and the same). Which is also applicable to human life human life: "In us the living and the dead, wakefulness and sleep, youth and old age, are one and the same: for the ones are changed into the others, and reciprocally."
Parmenides, in contrast, wrote long fragments of a poem written in a meter just as the Homeric epics; although there is the presence of goddesses and mystical symbols, the main substance is straightforward and logical. The poem has two segments: the first is "the way of Truth," the second, "the way of Opinion." Parmenides' principal truth is: We cannot think nor say not-being. Thus, he dismisses the possibility troublesome thought of not-being. For instance if someone were to say, "Angels are not (meaning they don't exist)." Parmenides’ response would be: either angels do exist, in which case you are uttering a lie, or there are not, in which case your word "angel" (and therefore the thought of) is about “nothing”. However, a thought (or word) can’t be about “nothing” because words have an ultimate goal or target. Thus, Parmenides’ introduced a way of opinion (dóxa). The word dóxa incorporated opinion, appearance, status, fame, along other features of a person’s character. Parmenides represented the truth masked in appearances, furthermore, that becoming and change are simply appearances; true being is does not undergo change.
Ultimately, from my understanding,Heraclitus and Parmenides are on opposite end of the totem pole: Heraclitus professes becoming and change, whereas Parmenides denies them.
Although they have some distinct differences in their philosophy, they both emphasize the importance of the logos. An example of a difference would be the disagreement on the element of stagnation and variation. For example heraclitus stresses that things are always in motion and constantly changing while permenides believes otherwise. also they have strong differences in knowledge and unity as permenides differentiates the two into what humans can know and what gods know (for they are omnipotent and omnicisent),a concept that would seem radical to heraclitus.
ReplyDelete