Nothing can come from nothing

The three Miletus philosophers believed that there was one and only one primary substance from which everything else was done. But how is it possible for a substance to change so that it suddenly becomes something completely different? This is what we call a problem of change. Since about 500 BC in the Greek colony of Elea in southern Italy lived a few philosophers who dealt precisely with these issues. The most famous among them was Parmenides (about 540-480 BC). Parmenides argued that everything that existed always have existed. This wrestling was widespread among the Greeks. They considered it natural that everything in the world had always been there. Nothing can come from nothing, Parmenides thought. And nothing that exists can become nothing. Parmenides, however, was more extreme than most philosophers. He thought no change was possible, because nothing could become something different from what it is. Of course, the thinker was aware that there were constant changes in nature. With his own senses, he found things changed. But he could not reconcile his perceptions with what his mind whispered. And because he was forced to decide whether to trust his senses or his mind, he chose reason. The saying "I will believe it only if I see it with my eyes" . Parmenides, however, did not believe then. He thought that the senses gave us a false image of the world, different from what the intellect tells us. And he decided that his job as a philosopher was to expose all forms of "sense deception". Such a strong belief in human reason is called rationalism. The rationalist is a man who has an unwavering confidence in human reason as the source of our knowledge of the world.

Image source

Just at the same time, Heraclitus from Ephesus lived in Asia Minor. According to him, the most fundamental quality of nature was its constant change. Let us put it this way: Heraclitus trusted his senses more than Parmenides. All flows, nothing stays" Heraclitus said. Everything is in motion and nothing lasts forever. That is why we can not step "twice into the same river" - when we run for the second time, we and the river will have changed. Heraclitus also points to the fact that the world is marked by eternal contradictions. If we never suffer, we would not know what it was like to be healthy. If we never hunger, we would not experience joy of satiety. If never a war wakes, we would not appreciate peace, and if winter never comes, we would not feel that spring is coming. Both good and evil have their share in the integrity of Heraclitus. Without the constant interaction of opposites, the world would cease to exist. "God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, satiety and hunger," he said. But, of course, they did not mean the gods about which the myths were told. For Heraclitus the god, or divine, is all-encompassing, and he notices it exactly in the ever-changing contradictory nature. Instead of the word "god", Heraclitus uses the Greek word "logos", meaning "reason". Although we humans do not always think equally, and do not have the same mind, thinking Heraclitus, there must be a sort of "world mind" that guides all natural processes. This world-wide mind or "world law" is universal and all obey him. However, most people live on their own mind, Heraclitus continues. He generally did not have a very high opinion of his own, and he considered the views of most people as "childish chatter." So Heraclitus consisted of unity or integrity in all changes and contradictions of nature. This "thing," which he believed was the basis of all things he called "god" or "logos."

Four basic substances

In a sense, Parmenides and Heraclitus were complete opposites. Parmenides's mind argued that nothing could change. However, Heraclit's sentimental experience has made the same determination that changes are constantly occurring in nature. Which one was right? What can we believe - our mind or our senses?
Both thinkers raise two theses:
Parmenides argues that:
A) nothing can change
B) and therefore we should not rely on our sensory perceptions.
Heraclitus - just the opposite! - claims that:
A) everything changes ("everything flows")
B) our sensory perceptions are a reliable source of knowledge.

There could hardly be any more serious disagreement between philosophers! But which one was right? Empedocles (about 494-43 BC) were judged to find a way out of the net in which philosophy became entangled. He thought both Parmenides and Heraclitus were right in one statement, and in the other they both were wrong. According to Empedocles, the reason for the great disagreement is rooted in the postulate that there is only one primary substance - as if this is self-evident. If it is true, then the gap between what the intellect tells us and what we perceive with our senses would be insurmountable. Water, of course, can not become a fish or a butterfly. Water can not change at all. Pure water is forever pure water. Parmenides was right, therefore, that nothing changed. At the same time, Empedocle agreed with Heraclitus that we should trust our senses, believe what we see - and we see permanent changes in nature.Thus, Empedocles came to the conclusion that the idea of ​​a single primary substance must be rejected. Neither water nor air can turn into a rose bush or a butterfly. Therefore, it is not possible for everything in nature to be attributable to one basic substance.

Empedocles believed that there are four basic substances in nature or what they called roots. These were land, water, air and fire. All changes in nature stem from the mixing and separation of these four substances. Because everything consists of land, air, fire and water, but in different proportions. If a flower or animal dies, the four elements separate from each other. We can observe this change with the naked eye. But the earth, the air, the fire and the water remain absolutely unchanging or untouched in all its compounds. Therefore, it is not true that "everything" is changing. In fact, nothing changes. The four substances simply mix and then separate to blend in again. It was not accidental that Empedocles believed that the roots of nature were just earth, water, air, and fire. And other philosophers before him tried to prove that the source should be either water or air or fire. After Empedocle explained how the changes in nature are due to the mixing or division of the four roots, the question remains: what is the reason for the elements to unite to create a new life? Which imposes a mixture, like the flower, to fall apart again? According to Empedocles, two different forces act in nature. He called them love and enmity. Love connects things, the enmity separates them. He therefore made the first difference between substance and strength. It is worth remembering this. Even today, science has distinguished fundamental elements and natural powers. Modern science believes that it can explain all natural processes with the interaction between different elements and several basic natural powers.