Being and Becoming
There is great debate between Heraclitus' theory of Becoming
and Parmenides' theory of Being. Both do have some logic and
evidence at least that would allow for any man to understand
where these two philosophers are coming from. But there are a
lot of weaknesses in the Being theory that lower its validity to
a different level than Becoming. It is because of this that
Heraclitus' view has a stronger impact on both human and natural
logic for existence. So out of the two theories, Heraclitus'
Becoming is more reasonable and logically explainable, making it
the more definite one.
Heraclitus' view of Becoming is a very common sense of logic
for man's interpretation of the world. There isn't much
interpretation or analysis of his theory for one to deal with.
It is very simple and straight forward. Things are not
constantly the same. Change is inevitable and a vital part of
the world. He is saying that matter undergoes processes that
bring it from one form into another. In sense the origin and
creation of the matter and object does not change, but it does
become something different within itself. For example, this is
to say that water can not become a block of wood, but it can
become vapor or ice. It also is not just a simple statement with
a wide response. It is a clearly stated thesis that leaves
little room for trivial interpretation. There is a clear
mentality that is common to human nature that derives this idea
of Becoming and allows for others to grasp it quickly even if
they choose not to agree with it.
On the other hand, Parmenides' idea of Being doesn't quite have
that logical grasp on others. He is merely stating that all the
world exists in a kind of stasis mode where there is no change.
Everything just is, which is Being, and can not be anything
other than being. This general grouping of everything as Being
provides for a very questionable definition of this word. If
everything is Being, then what exactly do they all possess that
makes them Being? There is much room for interpretation. If
Parmenides means only that everything exists, then one can also
say that things change. For one thing, by this definition, to
possess being it does not require any other set of rules to
exist. It merely needs to be. However, if the definition of
Being is more complex, something outside of just existing, then
it is a very vague understanding of how everything can be
grouped together in this one category of Being. This would give
a lack of development to the thought and leave the word Being as
an empty grouping of letters. It would not have a true meaning
and therefore not a true purpose which would render this theory
pointless and insignificant.
It should be somewhat clear by now why one side is stronger
than the other. There is a sense of both logical and evidential
validity to Heraclitus' theory. While in a way it can have a
broad interpretation or radical versions, it is much harder to
pull a part what he is saying than it is in the other theory. In
just every day life the common man sees evidence of Becoming. It
can be in the form of watching flowers and plants grow, baking
bread or meat, and leaving a glass of water out on a hot day.
These little hints at Becoming provide scientific explanations
to match the definition. There is no question to what Becoming
is. This makes it easy to follow and comprehend.
Being has a much harder time trying to prove itself to the
average man. If all matter exists, then it is Being, for it is
recognizable as evidently existing. But if it is Being, then it
is locked in a stasis existence meaning that Being and Becoming
can overlap. But, as stated before, there is no question that
change is viewed everyday, so it can not be that only one exists
by itself. And Becoming makes no claims to exist outside of
Being. Rather, Becoming could be a part of Being. And if Being
means something more than just existing, there is a questionable
logic behind what this Being is. For the definition would
provide too narrow of meaning to include everything. Becoming is
more of a verb than an adjective by its definition, so it is
easy to say that a cat can Become as much as a tree or a
baseball. And while it is Becoming, it is existing, and being.
But if it is Being, then it can not differ and can not be
Becoming. So therefore, Being is the weaker of the two theories
for it provides man with a more narrow logic and questionable
interpretation of existence.
While Being does have its strong points, and Becoming its weak,
the two can not fully compete with each other. Being lacks some
vital backbones to the argument, suggesting that even Parmenides
didn't quite understand how to explain himself and therefore
wasn't a hundred percent sure of what it means to be. Heraclitus
on the other hand provides a definition, that though apparently
more broad at first glance, is only seen this way because it is
more evidently provable and therefore more accurate its in
definition. In the end, it is Becoming that really shines as the
stronger of the two theories. It provides for a more
understandable and less interpretable argument. There is clarity
in what is being said and presented. This is why the argument
for Becoming is the better.