Does Change Exist? Pt. 1 Parmenides
Change is constant; everything in the world is constantly changing. The notion of change, whether we refer to this process as alteration, development or some other term, is a universal observation which is considered undeniable. Or is it? Furthermore, what exactly is change? And how can we be truly certain of this common principle?
First of all, doubting change can seem a little startling. Rene Descartes (born 1596), however, gives us a good example. Take a hard lump of wax, note that it is solid, shaped and together. However, when the wax is melted, it loses shape, colour and fragrance, increasing in size. Is this still the same lump of wax? We are now perceiving contrasting experiences of the wax, but we are certain that it is still the same. Although Descartes uses the wax example to illustrate his Rationalism, this is a good example to use here for doubters of change. If the previous lump of wax no longer exists, how can we be sure it wasn’t changed but replaced, for instance? Can we even discuss this previous hard wax if it is no longer there? From an Empiricist viewpoint, we cannot know the true wax, only the sense impressions we are perceiving of it, and now these impressions are totally different.
Keeping Descartes’ example in mind, let’s travel back in time to Ancient Greece. Pre-Socratic Naturalists shared a similar view on change. Heraclitus (c.500 BC) theorised the Unity of Opposites, meaning different notions work in different speeds and directions, such as travelling on a boat, for instance. The boat is moving forward, the wind may be oncoming but you, yourself are stationary. Thus, implying that the opposites work as one. Therefore, change relies on constant motion, which can be applied to all of the natural world. From this, Heraclitus deducted that we can know nothing about the world due to it constantly changing.
“Change, it rests” - Heraclitus
Heraclitus also stated that you cannot step into the same river twice, as it flowing different every time, “Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and again different these waters flow”. If the water stopped flowing, then the river would cease.
Cratylus, another skeptical Philosopher, was a little more absurd in his way of thinking. He believed that change was so constant, you couldn’t even step into the same river once as both you and the river are so incredibly changeable! This is radical skepticism. Cratylus was apparently so wary of words he wagged his finger instead of talking, as he believed they changed from leaving the mouth upon entering other’s ears.
Now, let’s explore a Philosopher who doubted change. Parmenides (born 515 BCE), rejected Heraclitus’s claim that the world is full of change, and believed change to be incoherent. He adopted a policy consisting of two routes, “Is” and “Is Not”, stating that the ‘Is’ route is the right and only route to take. The ‘Is Not’ route, however, is the wrong path. He claimed any statement follows either one of these paths. Parmenides insisted we needed to re-accustom to the habit of only using ‘Is’ statements, for ‘Is Not’ statements tell us nothing about our investigation of the ordinary world, for example, “the candle is not lit”, and just causes a muddle.
Parmenides applies this policy to change; thinking about change includes thinking about what Is Not, which is the forbidden route. This argument can be broken down into the following:
When something comes to be, it comes from what Is Not.
We cannot think about what Is Not.
So, change is unthinkable, for it causes us to discuss what no longer is - Is Not.
Of course, there are many arguments against Parmenides, stemming from why we should accept step one. Naturalists believed that everything comes from a previous something. Empedocles, a Pre-Socratic poet and great believer of the four base elements, granted Parmenides that there is no coming to be from what is not.
“All generation is alteration” - Naturalist slogan
Instead, Empedocles approaches change as alteration. If change is an alteration of the predicate, then it is not vulnerable to Parmenides objection. For example, “the banana turns yellow as it ripens”. What is not yellow, the banana, becomes yellow in a predicative sense. It had not come into being from what is not. Therefore, although the banana is not yellow, it still exists and escapes Parmenides’ logic. There would be a problem if we said “there was a yellow banana, but now there is not”, as it implies the banana came into existence ex nihilo (from nothing). The banana is not ‘in a way’, but Is in another way. Hence, why Empedocles uses the term ‘in no way’ to mean that it completely doesn’t exist.
(Remember Descartes’ wax? We can say that when the wax was melted, it was altered. Hence, it is still the same piece of wax, although it has drastically changed, and became it’s solid form caused by a change in the elements).
Now, Parmenides’ three stages are impaired. Step one is discussing coming to be from Is Not in the predicate of sense, whereas stage two refers to an existential sense. Therefore, step three is irrational, and cannot follow to conclude as the previous stages are discussing different senses of Is Not.
Despite Parmenides’ policy, the Naturalist view on constant change stood unshaken as they continued to study change in the cosmos. Empedocles thought ‘coming into being’ was a confusing term, and instead used alteration. Parmenides, however, claims the Naturalists approach gives opinion, and not knowledge.
End of Part One