Today we present the final addition to Heraclitus vs. Parmenides. Previous articles have explored the nature of metaphysics. Both philosophers concluded that the universe could be broken down into one fundamental thing. They presented radically different ideas about what that thing was, however. If you have not already, then read part one and two before continuing.
part one can be found here
part two can be found here
Implications
So who is right? Parmenides’ argument that it is impossible for something to go out of existence is basically a rehashing of the scientific law of the conservation of matter and energy. This would also imply that the universe as we know it is set, not capable of change. All events have already been predetermined because change is a logical impossibility.
This is the basis of what is called fatalism . If you combine this thought with the idea that every event is caused by a previous event then you have determinism. The universe, as Parmenides would suggest, is predetermined and there is no chance that it will ever change. The problem most people have with ‘determinism’ is that it is basically at odds with the idea of free will. And so to counter this, Parmenides makes the stunning claim that free will is an illusion. We may think we are making our own choices, but really our thoughts and actions are predetermined. Everything we think or do is caused by the eternal nature of the universe. Our thoughts may seem like our own, yet they are subject to cause and effect just like everything else.
Enter Heraclitus. This philosopher believed quite the opposite, as we know. The universe is consumed by change! All things are flux! “The way up and the way down are one in the same!” If we are to believe Heraclitus then we do, in fact, have free will. And yet the argument for free will is actually harder to make then you might think.
In order for free will to exist, our thoughts and actions must be the result of our will and our will alone. Yet, all things in the universe appear to be subject to cause and effect. So why would our thoughts and actions be any different? It would seem that in order to have free will, we would be defying the laws of reality, which is all events are caused by previous events. And if we are capable of defying the laws of reality, then that would suggest that we are god-like.
The theory that we are miraculously not subject to cause and effect is often referred to the “little god theory”. We create our own universe and the unchanging reality that was described by Parmenides has no sway over us.
So is everything constantly changing or is the universe predetermined, incapable of change? Are we the masters of our own life, using free will to defy the logic of cause and effect? Or are we all integral parts of a future that has already been written?
You are asking yourself these questions now… and as one more example; did you ask those questions to yourself of your own volition, your own free will? Or were those questions a direct result of reading this article? Did you choose to consider these thoughts? Or was it a result of forces beyond your control?
These are the questions that have plagued mankind. However, as is the case with most philosophy, we will probably never know the answer definitively. What we must always remember is that often times finding answers is not what is important. It is the questions themselves which are important. Philosophy is an action. We philosophize not always to find truth conclusively, but simply for the sake of it, for the sake of the questions. As Socrates would say, wisdom is not knowing everything. Wisdom is accepting that we know nothing.
6 comments
Wel, Ia ma a bit of a fatalist, so side more with Parmenides, in the Free Will is a bit of an illusion. But the truth, I truly think is something other than these 2 extremes. I could say it is in between the 2 extremes, but am not sure if that is an accurate “description”…..
I have to agree that there is a definite compromise between the two ideas, especially with the knowledge now bore by our rising efforts in physics (most notably quantum).
Fore, in essence, an object can “change”, because an object is made up of several different substances at several different states, and such substances are in turn made up of several different molecules at several different states, which in turn are as well made up of several different elements (atoms) at several different states. So, throughout these many different levels of an object can arise the possibility, and eventual inevitability, of change.
However, when one begins to observe “objects'” behavior a quantum level, one starts to realize something; the states of many different particles in which make of the universe, are at a constant, due to laws of conservation. Fore, a quark is always a quark, only “changing” it’s outlining structure (proton, neutron, etc.) when introduced to new quarks (though this is rare, and only occurs during high speed/energy collisions in the Hadron Collider and in exploding stars), and as well, a photon is always a photon, only “changing” in it’s frequency and wavelength.
So, a formidable conclusion from these observations would be to realize that “objects” don’t truly exist; they are not constant, because they are comprised of a many a different substances, molecules, atoms, and the like which are all in turn structured by constant particles in which are scattered across existence. These “objects” do in effect change, but nothing ever is “destroyed”, nor “fades away”, because the particles that make up such objects are at a complete constant. This would also imply that there is no “creation” either, as fore Parmenides was correct; something cannot form from nothing. Existence exists because existence exists; therefore, nonexistence cannot exist.
Fore Parmenides argument about the unicorn is also correct; the idea of a unicorn exists.
However, upon free will, even with new neurological findings, free will is still a perplexing phenomena; fore it is an inignorable, observable trait of animate beings to override their initial biological processes all the time. Examples are love, suicide, thought, question, the placebo effect, and many others. Fore it is shown that mental states to some degree do effect physical states, which although enlightening to know, does arise another question..
If mental states do exist, then just what are they? (Free will, qualia, beliefs, etc.)
Just a thought which may raise more questions than answers. If we consider the universe primarily from a material point of view, then the dilemma of free will remains. However, if there is a non-material aspect, a spiritual one, this might create some space for free will. While I am a Christian, so for me this spiritual aspect is God, a spiritual dimension is not limited to theism, but may simply be an aspect of existence. It would be to propose that there is an aspect of existence that is not subject to cause and effect, so is neither determined nor random. This aspect could be utilized by the will. I realize that materialists will heartily object to such an idea, but I thought I would suggest it anyway.
The Little Pinky Finger Cell
Doesn’t Know
It’s A Little Pinky Finger Cell
It’s PART OF AN IMMENSE WHOLE
A being called Life, Spirit, God, The Fifth Element
This Being,
Weeds Out Unsuccessful Choice-makers through a sort of
Karmic Homeostasis
This Being although,
Partial Neither WAY
Has A Bent for Kindness
Being Made Of LOve, Expressing The Light
To some extent I would have to agree with you, Moses; existence most definitely seems to imply more of a spiritual aspect to it rather then just a physical one. However, what I would dispute is that of the nature of cause and effect, and the way the two aspects interact. So, let me introduce my own philosophical conclusion on existence.
If existence exists because existence exists, then existence must exist to continue existence, therefore, every and any aspect of existence must abide by this underlying nature, therefore enabling a constant, continuous string of cause and effect.. or rather sphere.
Fore, now let’s introduce the idea of a spiritual aspect of existence; this as well would include cause and effect, but however, it is not of a material origin. And so, therefore, must be another substance entirely; the most likely candidate, let’s say then, is energy. Energy (pure energy, vibrational frequencies, photons, etc.) does not completely abide by cause and effect in a way we can comprehend, because it does not follow time in a linear pattern, like we are used to perceiving duration due to our 3-dimensional stance in existence. Instead, energy would abide by cause and effect in a 4-dimensional, nonlinear pattern, making it an excruciatingly complex system to follow accurately. In fact, this can already be observed through quantum studies and phenomena, much like the “Uncertainty Principle”, and among others, in quantum physics.
And of course, if this aspect of existence was the “cause” (or more rather essence) of such phenomena as free will, qualia, the experience, and so forth, then this aspect inarguably must overlap with the material aspect of existence, which can be undoubtedly observed via energy, which is not only effected by physical states, but as well can determine them, and effect them, too.
So, in summary, I myself am not a Christian, nor due I take any part of any other religion (though I do respect any and all religions entirely), however, I do happen to believe in some form of spiritual aspect of existence, as well as an afterlife, due to these findings through, not only philosophical means, but scientific ones, as well.
Socrates was right.
Our apologies, you must be logged in to post a comment.