'Heraclitus v Parmenides\r'

'The heavily studied philosophic view that has been carried for centuries on the disposition of macrocosm and the knowledge of it, displays the vast differences between the two philosophers Heraclitus and P legenides. mavin which believed in a singularity of things, darn one differs and carries the philosophy of a duality of reality. whizz that believes that the transplants in perception be deceitful, plot of ground the other displays a philosophical view that our perceptions essentially relative and invariably ever-changing based one of nature.\r\nOne believes that reality and nature is ageless , while the other believes that e trulything is constantly changing , and that rase the aerodynamic river that one whitethorn tint his foot in will not be the same river the next fourth dimension around. Heraclitus believed things were ever-changing, and that may be true. Science and physics( which is an arm of philosophy tells us that when force is use to things there is the possibility of a change in the molecular make up of the item. It is like a formless military issue.\r\n at once the matter has been molded into a finicky form it is more than likely to leave out atoms during the process. I believe the example of the flowing river is a pretty clever one. cosmos that the river is ever flowing there is constant erosion occurring as the constant (the hindquarters of the river) interacts with the moving (the flow of the water). In actuality stock-still the small acts such as palpitation hands involves the exchange of atoms and molecules. Parmenides presented a irrelevant philosophical opinion to that of Heraclitus.\r\nParmenides presented the view that the enounce of being in nature is constant. It does not change and that our perception of reality may at times be precise deceitful. bandage I do not agree with this in regards to the state of being and nature I do debate this argument would hold much weight unit and would be con military posi tionred a solid honor in terms of psychology. A soul’s psychological makeup could very well affect the way a person views reality, and could present falsehoods.\r\nOne of Parmenides’ virtually popular argument of that something that is not cannot be feasibly proven as it is not in a state of being. I would signal that it could simply as the inverse of something that is. While both draw left a longing impression on the westbound philosophy and we are still argue the same debate that they did today, I would have to agree with the argument of Heraclitus on the topic of the status of being. Things are always changing; we live with gravity which in itself generates us to change, without it we would not age nearly as quickly as we do.\r\nI reclaim the difference in the argument in the duality and constant being of nature to be one of a matter from a modern perspective as looking at things from a macro and small perspective. On the macro side things look the same a nd unchanged as it takes drastic force or specify to change things, but on the micro level even the small of acts cause for a strong movement of atoms. I would have to agree with Heraclitus, although Parmenides does present a very valid argument when determined in proper context.\r\n'