Creation (Parmenides) vs. Evolution (Heraclitus)
Heraclitus was an ancient Greek philosopher who was born around 540 B.C. into an aristocratic family in Ephesus. Heraclitus however, was not a fan of popular society in his day and resolutely walked away from political life. He was a loner and eventually ended up completely withdrawing himself from public life in Ephesus. Heraclitus felt that everyone in his ancient Greek society was blind to the truth LOGOS; the unseen entity that he believed we all possess whether we realize it or not. It is essentially a progression instead of an actual entity. “He insisted that, despite the fact that there is universal change, there is a single, unchanging, law of the cosmos – the logos which both underlies and governs these changes. Thus one who understands the logos can understand the workings of the cosmos.” (Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy from Thales to Aristotle Third Edition, pg 24)
In contrast Parmenides believes things didn’t become from nothing and becoming must come from being. He theorized that there is no such thing as NOTHING because it’s always something; “something cannot come from nothing”. For example if you’re thinking of nothing you’re still thinking of something. In my opinion, I don’t find this concept a groundbreaking one. It’s relatively straight forward, but perhaps that’s the point. However, after reading his theory about being I am beginning to realize there is no such thing as nothing, and if there is, it’s a much greater force than humans can wrap their heads around. It’s like he’s trying to confuse us with all this talk of BEING and NOTHING at the same time. Possibly it’s because I just don’t agree with his views that there can be no becoming; only being.
Parmenides disagrees with Heraclitus’ view on the Unity of Opposites; because he is stuck on the fact that something can only be one thing....