The article investigates fragments of the two Presocratic philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides, which are frequently seen as indicating two drastically different views of the world – the former often being summarized as “Everything flows”, the latter as “Everything rests”. The perspective chosen here is a descriptive one focussing on the “ontic” aspect, i.e. the level of mere being there, of presence. It is discussed how an ontic interpretation of the aforementioned Presocratic fragments allow at least a partial integration of the seemingly diametrically opposed philosophies, namely in maintaining that with all the doubtlessly occurring change in the phenomenal world, change does not imply objects turning into “nothingness”, but rather into different being. Thus, change of state and development is acknowledged on the one hand, as well as the persistence of being on the other hand. Several references to 20th Century philosophy serve to underline the interpretation given here.
Table of Contents
1. A seeming controversy – flux versus static
2. Heraclitus – constant change
3. Parmenides – constant being
4. Being and becoming from the ontic point of view
Research Objectives and Themes
This work aims to reconcile the historically perceived dichotomy between Heraclitus' philosophy of constant flux and Parmenides' philosophy of static being by applying an "ontic perspective." The research question explores whether these diametrically opposed views can be integrated when interpreted at the level of mere presence—specifically, the state of "being there" (Vorhandenheit)—thereby demonstrating that change does not imply the emergence of nothingness, but rather the transformation of existing phenomena.
- Analysis of Presocratic philosophy and the shift from mythos to logos.
- Deconstruction of the "Everything flows" versus "Everything rests" controversy.
- Examination of Heraclitus' river fragments and the concept of recurring change.
- Evaluation of Parmenides' "what-is" as an imperishable and continuous state of being.
- Synthesis of being and becoming through phenomenological and ontic inquiry.
Excerpt from the Book
Being and becoming from the ontic point of view
Both Presocratic philosophers contrast, in their differing ways, an unchanging eternity – either as a principle that keeps the world in motion, as with Heraclitus, or the unborn and imperishable what-is, as with Parmenides – with the phenomena of change. From an ontic point of view, the present-at-hand may be subject to constant change, as Heraclitus pointed out, and yet it always remains something – however drastic the changes and modifications may be. The mere facticity, the presence of being, of what-is, then, would be unchanging and imperishable, and this coincides with the claims of Parmenides. Hence constant change of appearance, flux does not necessarily contradict constant presence of being, if we take into account that what-is undergoes change, but remains what-is in whatever state. One could maintain: All is one, ever changing, from one state to another and back again, but united in being and change, or the being of becoming, as the French philosopher Sartre has pointed out even as recently as in the 20th Century: “For being is the being of becoming and due to this fact it is beyond becoming.” (Sartre 1992, p. 29)
In addition to that, the phenomenon of destruction can be, according to Sartre, viewed as a human one: “In a sense, certainly, man is the only being by whom a destruction can be accomplished. A geological plication, a storm do not destroy – or at least they do not destroy directly; they merely modify the distribution of masses of beings. There is no less after the storm than before. There is something else. Even this expression is improper, for to posit otherness there must be a witness who can retain the past in some manner and compare it to the present in the form of no longer. In the absence of this witness, there is being before as after the storm – that is all.
Chapter Summaries
1. A seeming controversy – flux versus static: This chapter introduces the historical conflict between Heraclitus and Parmenides and proposes the "ontic perspective" as a method to bridge their seemingly contradictory views on change and stability.
2. Heraclitus – constant change: This section explores Heraclitus’ focus on the world of experience, analyzing his river fragments to demonstrate how change occurs within a persistent, underlying principle.
3. Parmenides – constant being: This chapter examines Parmenides’ assertion of an imperishable "what-is," arguing that his rejection of "nothingness" does not explicitly negate change, but rather insists on the continuity of being.
4. Being and becoming from the ontic point of view: The final chapter synthesizes the previous analyses, utilizing phenomenological insights to argue that constant flux and constant being are not mutually exclusive, but coexist within the ontic reality of the world.
Keywords
Presocratics, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Ontic Perspective, Being, Becoming, Flux, Static, Logos, Vorhandenheit, Phenomenological, Nothingness, Existence, Philosophy of Nature, Dialectics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this work?
The work investigates the apparent contradiction between Heraclitus’ doctrine of constant flux and Parmenides’ doctrine of constant being through the lens of an "ontic perspective."
What are the primary themes discussed?
The central themes include the nature of change, the existence of being, the role of logos, the interpretation of Presocratic fragments, and the phenomenological understanding of reality.
What is the main research goal?
The goal is to demonstrate that the perceived binary between flux and static existence can be resolved by focusing on the "ontic" level, where change is recognized as a transformation of things rather than an emergence from nothingness.
Which scientific method is applied?
The author employs a descriptive, phenomenologically oriented analytical method to interpret early Greek philosophical fragments within the context of existence and presence.
What is covered in the main body?
The main body examines the specific fragments of Heraclitus regarding river-flow and dialectics, contrasts them with Parmenides’ poem on truth, and integrates these findings using modern philosophical concepts from Heidegger and Sartre.
How are the key terms defined for this study?
Key terms like "being" and "what-is" are treated as synonymous within this discussion, focusing on the sheer facticity of the present-at-hand.
How does the author interpret the "river fragments" of Heraclitus?
The author suggests that the river remains identical to itself in its geographical position, illustrating that while qualities change, the essence of the "something" remains persistent.
What does the reference to the Great Fire of London illustrate?
It illustrates that destruction is experienced by humans as a loss of form, but from an ontic view, it is merely a reconfiguration of existing matter rather than a transition into absolute nothingness.
- Quote paper
- Dr. Christian H. Sötemann (Author), 2008, Heraclitus and Parmenides – an ontic perspective, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/120913
