Pre-Socratic View on Change-Motion In our current times, we do not stop to think about or question change or motion in our material world. We now know that change and motion exist. Even if we as individuals don’t know the properties and processes that cause change or motion, we don’t doubt that they are possible, as science has proven that they are in fact plausible. However, information about change and motion has not always been so well defined. The unknown aspects of what caused change and motion, how it affected the world, or whether change or motion was even possible led to a search for answers among many philosophers in Ancient Greece. Heraclitus, Parmenides and Zeno, and Epicurus, all pre-Socratic philosophers, were intrigued by …show more content…

According to his theory change is self-contradicting and although we might perceive things as changing, change does not occur. Even if we can actively see something changing, it is simply an illusion.
To better understand how Parmenides came to this conclusion one must realize that “what is, is” and “what is not, is not” isn’t as literal as it sounds. According to Parmenides the statement “what is not, is not” means that there is no such thing as nothing. So what is, is uncreated in the sense if it were created it would have to either a) be created from nothing, which is not possible since there is no nothing or b) be created from something, but assuming his monistic view there is only one thing, so creation out of something else is impossible, thus what is, is uncreated. What is, is also indestructible, because that would mean it would change into nothing, and nothing does not exist and change does not occur. Therefore what is, is eternal because obviously what is uncreated and indestructible is eternal. And lastly what is, is unchangeable because that would require for something to change into what it is not, and the thing it was before it changed would have to disappear into nothing, but there is no nothing. From this Parmenides furthered elaborated on his theory of their being no change, saying that in order for there to be change there must be a cause to such a change, namely a prior change. Yet, for that prior change, there must be yet a prior