being and becoming
There is a great debate between Heraclitus’ theory of becoming and Parmenides’ theory of being. Both have some logic and evidence at least that would allow any man to understand where these two philosophers come 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’s Becoming is more reasonable and logically explainable, making it the more definite.
Heraclitus’ vision of Becoming is a very common logical sense for man’s interpretation of the world. There isn’t much interpretation or analysis of his theory 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 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. Nor is it 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 mind that is common to human nature that derives from this idea of Becoming and allows others to quickly grasp it even if they choose not to agree 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 some sort 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 it can also be said that things 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 lumped into this one category of Being. This would underdevelop the thought and leave the word Being. as an empty grouping of letters. It would have no real meaning and therefore no real purpose, rendering this theory useless and meaningless.
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’s theory. While in some ways it can have a broad interpretation or radical versions, 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 may 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.
The being finds it much more difficult to try to prove himself to the average man. If all matter exists, then it is Being, because it is recognizable as evidently existing. But if it is Being, then it is locked in 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 only one exists by itself. And Becoming does not claim 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. Becoming is more of a verb than an adjective by definition, so it’s easy to say that a cat can become 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 Ser has its strengths and Become its weaknesses, the two cannot fully compete with each other. Being is missing some vital pillars of the plot, which suggests that even Parmenides didn’t quite understand how to explain himself, and therefore wasn’t 100 percent sure what being means. Heraclitus, on the other hand, provides a definition that, while seemingly broader at first glance, only looks this way because it is more evidently provable, and therefore more precise in defining it. In the end, it’s 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.