Today was our class's first debate. We argued the problem of change in the context of two philosophers' views: Heraclitus and Parmenides. I argued for Parmenides. It was a great learning experience for me--the first time I had participated in a real debate. I had done seminars before, but never such an intense debate where I had to be so quick on my feet.
If I were Heraclitus, I would have targeted Parmenides on Darwin. Darwin's theory of evolution, published in his most famous work, On the Origin of Species, describes a theory of natural selection, of adaptation and descent. In the scientific world, this theory is widely believed to be true. Animals, humans, plants: we are all adapting. Single mutations in our genetics become widespread and will eventually affect the entire population, such as opposable thumbs. Can we live well without them? Not really. BAM--beneficial mutation. Heraclitus's view that everything changes is supported by Darwin's theory. Everything changes, everything evolves. It is so hard for me to see Parmenides's side of this argument.
How can things be permanent if everything I do is controlled by change?
Is not the condition of being human somewhat permanent? Even through adaption and natural selection the state of being, needing to make sense of the world in order to survive, has not every person that has ever lived experienced this part of the human condition on some level?
ReplyDeleteI read your Sophie's World essay and it is exquisite.