Explanation of the thought of the two famous philosophers of ancient Greece: Heraclitus and Parmenides. Life, philosophical theories, common and discordant points.
Heraclitus and Parmenides
The first philosophers did not appear suddenly. Plato says that more anciently there were the Seven Sages. They were experts in life, authors of pills of wisdom intended to improve morality. Among them, Chilo invited to control anger, Pittacus recommended prudence and loyalty, while Bias urged to bear misfortunes with dignity.
But these sentences lacked the desire to know the reality that surrounds man. The Seven Sages had no reason to fight among themselves: the sentences of one could overlap with those of the other. The first opposing philosophical theories were born precisely with the first philosophers.
Heraclitus and Parmenides are the first to clash.
Heraclitus said that everything is constantly changing, Parmenides that reality never changes. For Heraclitus, everything flows; for Parmenides, everything is still. However, they agreed only on the eternity of the world.
Their dispute divided the philosophical community for centuries, leaving behind repercussions that still linger today.
The followers of the two philosophers
The followers of Parmenides and those of Heraclitus did not like each other.
The Heracliteans and the Parmenideans were the first two philosophical parties that fought each other. These two parties also had their nicknames: the Heracliteans were called the scrollers , the Parmenideans the sitting ones.
But the problem raised by Heraclitus and Parmenides is the opposition between permanence and change : a problem destined to last for centuries, even today.
Heraclitus
Heraclitus lived between the sixth and fifth and sixth centuries BC, it is said that he descended from the kings of his native city, but he quickly freed himself of his royal office. The government of Ephesus was democratic, but not Heraclitus: misanthropic and contemptuous, he despised the masses and did not reserve better treatment for illustrious men. He did not hesitate to call Pythagoras a cheat .
He had a special contempt for doctors , and when he had to treat his serious illness, dropsy, he turned to them: “Can you create a drought from a flood?”, he asked. The doctors did not understand, so Heraclitus thought of curing himself with philosophy, with his theory that everything transforms into its opposite.
And since it was necessary to transform the moisture of his body into dryness, he covered himself up to the neck with still-warm manure and exposed himself to the sun’s rays. That was, so to speak, his deathbed.
The Panta rei
Given his character, Heraclitus could not have a peaceful vision of the world. So he imagined that war was the universal law . Even inorganic nature lives on the contrasts between the elements of which it is composed. And the most disruptive element of all is fire : it can transform, destroy and generate.
Heraclitus was fascinated by the power of fire. What made him put this element in the forefront was its prerogative to transform everything. The basis of the exaltation of fire is the observation of the Sun: the principle of life on Earth, it favors maturation and procreation.
But when he wanted to explain his theory of continuous change more fully, he preferred to use an image other than that of fire, he used the image of the river: “You cannot step into the same river twice.” You cannot because water flows incessantly. The existence of the things of the world is just like the current of a river. We must say of them not that they “are,” but that they “become.”
The harmony of opposites
After proclaiming war as a universal law of nature, Heraclitus argues that harmony is the force that holds all reality together. But the harmony he theorizes is a harmony that feeds on contrasts.
This harmony born of contrast has been given many names: “discordant concord,” “harmony of opposites.” Why does it not happen that cold destroys heat and vice versa? It happens because beneath the oppositions there is a unitary reality, but in continuous movement.
Of course, every opposite tends to convert into its opposite: but everything follows an incessant cycle and is always the same, so there is a general law of change that regulates becoming. This law provides for a cyclical progression whereby everything returns to the starting point, as happens with day and night. There is therefore a hidden harmony that reconciles the contrasts that we perceive.
Parmenide
The first great duel in the history of thought pitted a radically different character against Heraclitus. Parmenides also came from a noble family, but he did not have the haughtiness typical of aristocrats: he was respectful towards his teachers and well-disposed towards his fellow citizens.
But he did not express his thoughts in everyday language. He chose the form of myth and the language of poets . He chose justice, Dike in Greek, as his protective goddess . And his work On Nature presents itself as a journey, in the manner of the Divine Comedy. In it, Parmenides is led to Dike’s palace, where the goddess reveals to him the mysteries of reality.
The Definition of Being
Parmenides is not obscure because he is ambiguous or enigmatic, but he tries to introduce a technical philosophical jargon. His most famous statement sounds like a tongue twister: being is, non-being is not.
Parmenides argues that when you think something, that something is , and that you cannot think something that is not. Parmenides does not speak of nature or reality, but speaks of “ being ”, because it is a broader concept, which includes not only natural entities, but also mathematical ones, the objects of our thought or our will. Therefore an insurmountable barrier separates being from that which is not.
For Heraclitus, what is not yet can come to be. For Parmenides, on the other hand, what is not will never be something that is.
In saying this, he denies becoming , which consists in the possibility that what is not comes to be, and that what is now ceases to exist.
