>In any event, the analogy between Laozi and Anaximander’s ideas shows us >that the ancient West and China probably shared a common idea concerning >cosmic change, whether construed in terms of the Hot and the Cold or of Yin and >Yang. In view of this, change is extremely important, and substantial beings are >only regarded as the results of change, always existing in a continuous process of >changing and becoming. Unfortunately, since Parmenides, a view based on the >idea of eternal un-change has dominated Western thought. Hence, the search for >what is eternal and certain, and the exclusion of what is changing and uncertain, >has become a permanent impetus of Western philosophy.
Did Parmenides irreparably break Western philosophy?
process philosophy spergs are like the Yea Forums equivalent of that kid in class who never shut up about his atheism
Joshua Morris
What did you mean by this?
Gavin Price
I don’t know who you are quoting but neither of you know what your talking about
Evan Campbell
why are there like three threads about process philosophy and sodomy
Grayson Campbell
>another idiot thinking Heraclitus and Parmenides were at odds
Robert Williams
REEE PLATO IS BECOMING ARISTOTLE IS BEING
Carson Sanders
Right on. Heraclitus change was an essential property of the world, but everything is controlled by Logos (= a monism) and the Logos itself is 'One', because everything takes part in it. This makes it moot whether the Logos itself is subject to change, because if it changes, we change accordingly, so in effect, the outer parts have changed, the core remains untouched.
Parmenides was more radical in his attitude toward change, denying it for the most part. Heraclitus and Parmenides were much closer than what appears on the surface.
Luke Sullivan
Yes but even more, don’t u see what the words themselves are doing
because sodomites and trannies are attracted to and like spamming Whitehead, Deleuze, Bergson etc (the original whiteheadfag is okay though)
Liam Garcia
Laozi isn't even the best Laozist Zhuangzi is my nigger
Owen Morales
Based Parmenides. What isn´t cannot become, therefore everything that has become, existed eternally before it became, for the possibility, for it to become
Kevin Jenkins
Deleuze gave us Nick Land though.
Elijah Ortiz
I'm more of a Liu I-Ming guy myself but yeah.
Ayden Walker
Nick Land is a washed up ex-druggie hack whose entire oeuvre deserves to be burned, if I lived in Nazi Germany and magically had a copy of his works I would have throw them myself into the fires of the book burnings that took place
Easton Jackson
>We must in my opinion begin by making the following distinctions. What is that which always is, and has no becoming, and what is that which is always becoming but never in any way is? The one is apprehensible by intelligence with an account, being always the same, the other is the object of opinion together with irrational sense perception, becoming and ceasing to be, but never really being. In addition, everything that becomes must do so owing to some cause; for nothing can come to be without a cause. Whenever, then, the demiurge of anything keeps his eye on the eternally unchanging and uses some such thing as his pattern for the form and function of his product, the result is necessarily fine; whenever he looks to something that has come to be and uses a model that has been generated, the result is necessarily not As for the whole heaven—let us call it that or ‘the world’ or any other name most acceptable to it—we must ask about it the question one has to ask to begin with about anything: whether it always was and had no origin of coming into being, or whether it has come into being, having started from some origin. The answer is that it has come into being; for it is visible, tangible and corporeal, and all such things are perceptible by the senses, and, as we saw, perceptible things are objects of opinion and sense perception and come into being and are generated.
Nathan Cox
And it is necessary, we said, for what has come into being to have done so by some cause. To discover the maker and father of this universe is indeed a hard task, and having found him it would be impos- sible to tell everyone about him. Let us return, then, and ask the following question about it: to which pattern did its constructor work, that which remains the same and unchanging or that which has come to be? If this world here is beautiful and its maker good, it is clear to all that he had his eye on the eternal; if the alternative (which it is blasphemy even to mention) is true, then on something that has come into being. Clearly he had his eye on the eternal: for the world is the fairest of all things that have come into being and he is the best of causes. In this way it was crafted on the pattern of what is apprehensible by reason and understanding and eternally unchanging. These things being so, it is in every way necessary that this world is a likeness of something.
