Out of the three pre-socratic scholars, my beliefs most align with Heraclitus. Heraclitus believed that the arche of reality was time, because it was a universal aspect that affects all beings. This argument was the most logical to me, because Heraclitus’ argues that no object or moment is the same as it was in a previous point of time. Even though the changes might be small, everything is evolving gradually, whether it’s mentally or physically. The particular example that Heraclitus uses is stepping into a river, which he explains that “those who step into the same river have different waters flowing ever upon them”, and that “It is not possible to step twice into the same river”. This particular example was effective in demonstrating his argument, because a river can be visually seen as a constantly changing object. …show more content…
He argues that opposites turn into another, so light eventually becomes dark, and life eventually becomes death, which is his “law of becoming.” I preferred this argument because it seems to connect beings and objects, as when one object ceases to be itself, it turns into its opposite. This cyclical order seems to appear in nature, as when an animal dies, it becomes food for another, or when it rains, the water condensates and goes into the clouds. I think the process of the rainwater becoming a different form is best encompassed using Heraclitus’ arche or reality, and even though my example is simple, I believe it can be applied to more complex realities. For example, when applied to the law of friendship, I can interpret Heraclitus’ arche being applied in this case as two individuals are originally acquaintances. They do not start off as friends, but rather, they transition from acquaintances to