being and becoming
There is a great debate between Heraclitus’ theory of becoming and Parmenides’ theory of being. They both have some logic and evidence at least that would allow any man to understand where these two philosophers are coming from. But there are many weaknesses in the theory of Being that reduce its validity to a different level than that of Becoming. This is why Heraclitus’ vision has a stronger impact on the human and natural logic of existence. So of the two theories, Heraclitus’ Becoming is more reasonable and logically explainable, making it the more definite.
Heraclitus’ view of Becoming is a very common logical sense for man’s interpretation of the world. There is not much interpretation or analysis of the theory of it to deal with. It is very simple and direct. Things are not always the same. Change is inevitable and a vital part of the world. He is saying that matter goes through processes that take it from one form to another. In a sense, the origin and creation of matter and the object does not change, but becomes something different within itself. For example, this means that water cannot turn into a block of wood, but it can turn into steam or ice. It’s also not just a simple statement with a broad response. It is a clearly stated thesis that leaves little room for trivial interpretations. There is a clear mindset that is common to human nature that derives from this idea of Becoming and allows others to pick it up quickly even if they choose to disagree with it.
On the other hand, Parmenides’ idea of Being does not have that logical understanding of others. He is simply stating that everyone exists in a kind of stasis mode where there is no change. Everything is simply what Being is, and cannot be anything other than Being. This general grouping of everything as Being provides a very questionable definition of this word. If everything is Being, then what exactly do they all possess that makes them Being? There is a lot of room for interpretation. If Parmenides only means that everything exists, then things can also be said to change. On the one hand, according to this definition, in order to possess being, no other set of rules is required to exist. It just has to be. However, if the definition of Being is more complex, something beyond simply existing, then it is a very vague understanding of how everything can be grouped into this single category of Being. This would give a lack of development to thought and leave the word Being as an empty grouping of letters. It would have no true meaning and therefore no true purpose, which would make this theory useless and insignificant.
It should be somewhat clear by now why one side is stronger than the other. There is a sense of both logical and evidential validity in Heraclitus’ theory. While it can have broad interpretation or radical versions in a way, it is much more difficult to separate what it says than in the other theory. In everyday life, the common man sees evidence of Becoming. It can be in the form of watching flowers and plants grow, baking bread or meat, and leaving a glass of water outside on a hot day. These little hints of Becoming provide scientific explanations that match the definition. There is no doubt what Becoming is. This makes it easy to follow and understand.
Being you find it much more difficult to try to prove your worth to the average man. If all matter exists, then it is Being, because it is recognizable as obviously existing. But if it is Being, then it is locked into a static existence, which means that Being and Becoming can overlap. But, as said before, there is no doubt that change is seen every day, so it cannot be that there is only one by itself. And Becoming does not pretend to exist outside of Being. Rather, Becoming could be a part of Being. And if Being means something more than existing, there is a questionable logic behind what this Being is. Because the definition would provide too much meaning. narrow to include everything. To become is more of a verb than an adjective by definition, so it’s easy to say that a cat can become just as much as a tree or a baseball. And while it is Becoming, it is existing and being. But if it is Being, then it cannot differ and it cannot be Becoming. Therefore, Being is the weaker of the two theories because it provides man with a narrower logic and a questionable interpretation of existence.
While Being has its strengths and Becoming has its weaknesses, the two cannot fully compete with each other. Being is missing some vital pillars of the argument, suggesting that even Parmenides did not quite understand how to explain himself, and therefore was not one hundred percent sure what it means to be. Heraclitus, on the other hand, provides a definition that, while seemingly broader at first glance, is only seen this way because it is more obviously provable, and thus more precise in defining him. In the end, it is Becoming that really shines as the stronger of the two theories. It provides a more understandable and less interpretable argument. There is clarity in what is said and presented. This is why the argument for Becoming is better.