A few years ago I came across the thoughts of Parmenides, a pre-Socratic philosopher from Elea (close to what is today the city of Rome, Italy). Parmenides argues for, among other bizarre things, the bizarre position that there is no such thing as change. When I first came across his argument it struck me as somewhat naive. I have since come to think however that he is absolutely right and I can’t really see how we can argue with him without doing violence to the truth. So I would like to pose the question, do things really change, or are they simply what they are as they are in the moment? And also, why care?
Parmenides’ argument against change finds its point of departure in the core insight that one cannot meaningfully speak about what “is-not”, or what does not exist. He goes on to argue that the concept of change necessarily makes reference to that which does not exist, since change involves a thing going from being a thing of a certain sort to being a thing of a different sort. For example, I go from having long hair to having short hair. In order for me to change to having short hair, I must stop existing as a thing that has long hair. Therefore, for the process of change to be intelligible I must make reference to something that, strictly speaking, no longer exists (me with long hair). Given that it is impossible to properly make reference to what does not exist, it follows that the concept of change is logically incoherent.
My intuitive response when first coming across this line of reasoning was something like: “what the hell is this guy on about?” Of course there is change. Change is that process that involved the transition between me having long hair and me having short hair, which took place in a barber’s chair.
After thinking about it though it has become apparent to me that there is definitely merit in what Parmenides is arguing. The issue I think boils down to the issue of the ontological standing of the past. Does the past exist now? If we think that the past no longer exists, which it seems we must, then we have to think that the concept of change is incoherent. After all, to what are we to refer to when saying that something has changed? Of course we have to look to how it was in the past. But considering how a thing was in the past is to think about something which just isn’t there. The past is gone, all that there is the thing as it is here and now.
The mistake we make, which may often be a useful mistake though often is a very damaging mistake, is that we make the assumption that how things have been somehow co-exist with how things currently are. But I think this is probably a mistake, the past does not co-exist with the moment. This is at least definitely true for all practical purposes, we can’t experience the past like we can experience the present because the past is no longer there to be experienced by any means other than memory. What can we really say is left of the past other than the imprint it has left on the moment? What is left of the past other than the memory of it? What will become of the past if there is no one left to recall it? But the memory of a thing is not the thing itself, the imprint of a thing is not the thing itself.
So what is the practical significance of Parmenides’ insight? The challenge I think is to remember what is real and return ourselves to that. What is real is the moment that you are in. Things do not exist as being different from what they used to be, they simply exist as they are, because what they used to be no longer exists. I am not something that is now different. Different from what? I just am. Existence is nothing other than things existing as they are in the moment. That is what is truly real. The moment is a highly significant thing because the moment is all that really is.
Parmenides’ insight then is a call to the moment. It is a call to avoid the mistake of granting existence to that which does not exist. Avoid thinking about how things have changed because to do so is to set up the past as if it were really something that exists, against which we can compare the present. But to compare the present with the past is to compare the incomparable. The present is, the past isn’t. When thinking about how things have changed you are re-constructing a reality that is just not there. Deal with how things are, not how they have been, and forget about change, unless of course you are a historian. If you are a historian though, concern yourself with the study of memories and the telling of stories, and do not think you are studying the things themselves. After-all, there is not a large difference between a historical documentary and a fictional story, the former just finding its source from memories and historical remnants, the latter from imagination. The stories told by both have an equal share of reality though, they both have existence only in the minds of those who write and read them.