Member-only story
The (Old) Debate on Change
Musings on the possibility of change through some old philosophers.
Is change possible? Reading that line might appear to be a waste of time. My perception is that the dominant understanding in our social location understands change to be assumed.
But what if it isn’t possible?
To play my hand, I consider the potentiality of change to be one of the most important facilitators of human life. Without change, a dreary drab of meaninglessness circumvents hope. However, I do not want to jump to a conclusion on the subject without considering as many angles as possible.
Fortunately, this is one of the most debated topics in philosophical history.
Even better, understanding the nature of change is a wondrous catalyst for actually manifesting its reality. If we are going to have a healthy relationship with the subject at hand — which, full disclosure, I don’t think our culture does — understanding its foundational principles will only work to supplement any further conversation.
Some Old Philosophers Who Didn’t Like Change
How has this topic been thought about over time? Well, most importantly, there has not been a unanimous agreement. Far from it. Further, the various perspectives that have cropped up to our existential horizon have done so because of the vast implications they have for sentient existence. People have been trying to figure this out for a long time.
Therefore, I’d like to offer a brief exploration of a few of the dominant takes on the subject. Particularly, I’m interested in the earliest accounts — the ones that set the foundation of the conversation in philosophical history. So, consider this a very limited review of literature. Also, know that there is a particular agenda I’m attempting to converge on, of which this is the vehicle.
Let’s begin with three pre-Socratic (meaning, before Socrates) philosophers: Democritus, Parmenides, and Empedocles.
