Contemplating the arguments of Aristotle and Parmenides on the topic of change is interesting because, even though Aristotle is clearly being nitpicky about the way Parmenides’ argument is presented and obviously doesn’t agree with what Parmenides is saying fully, Aristotle still finds aspects of Parmenides’ argument to be true to what he believes. This is shown in their arguments as Parmenides arguing against any form of change (because it doesn’t make sense) and Aristotle arguing for certain types of change.
At the base of Parmenides’ argument against change is that:
1. It is impossible to think of what is-not.
2. The concept of generation (coming-into-being) makes sense only if one can think what is-not.
3. Therefore, the concept of generation
…show more content…
Therefore, the concept of change does not make sense.
So the main idea of this argument is that: if something comes to be then it is clearly a being and clearly is. Then what does this being come to be from? For this Parmenides offers us two solutions, either what is or what is not. However if the original thing is what is, and the resulting being is also what is, then nothing has actually come into being and so therefor no change has occurred. Carrying on with this point brings us to the idea of if the original thing is what is not, then according to Parmenides himself this is an impossibility because “nothing comes from nothingness.”
“The first of those who studied philosophy were misled in their search for truth and the nature of things by their inexperience, which as it were thrust them into another path. So they say that none of the things that are either comes to be or passes out of existence, because what comes to be must do so either from what is or from what is not, both of which are impossible. For what is cannot come to be (because it is already), and from what is not nothing could have come to be (because something must be underlying).” (Aristotle 191a25)
And at the base of Aristotle’s response to Parmenides’ argument are two