Parmenides Arguments For The Existence Of Change

Parmenides thought he lived in a continuous world where change does not exist and nothing comes into being or ceases to be. This ideology that change does not exist was rejected by later philosophers such as Aristotle. In Aristotle’s Physics, he discusses what governs nature and the world around us, such as the concept of change. Through his four causes and the principle of privation, Aristotle successfully explains how it is possible for change to occur in the modern world by showing that change does not occur in all parts of the subject undergoing change. Parmenides argues that change does not exist using logic. In this essay I will discuss the problem with Parmenides argument being he views the subjects as simple being and non-being. Aristotle's account of the subjects as compounds of matter and form and privation, will remedy Parmenides misunderstanding of change as an absolute. In this essay I will discuss both philosopher's arguments for the existence of change.
In Parmenides poem, On Nature, he reaches the startling conclusion that change does not exist. In a world which constantly adapts or changes this conclusion is hardly plausible. The definition of change is a coming to be or something’s genesis. However, for Parmenides there is no
He says philosophers like Parmenides were misled because they tried to understand change as absolute, meaning change would happen automatically; this caused them to reject the concept of change. Aristotle explains in his book Physics, how something can come from non-being or privation and from something that already exists. Privation, to Aristotle, is the absence of something’s contrary form. In his definition of all “natural things”, Aristotle says that they have the potential to change within themselves. The way Aristotle looks at nature and change is extremely different than Parmenides’ motionless and continuous