Hello reader!

In this blog entry, I will try to explain the notion of CHANGE. I hope to answer the following questions:

1. What is change?

2. How do the different Greek philosophers explain change? Which are wrong? Which is right?

3. What are the types of change?

So, let’s begin with some everyday examples of change: a slice of bread becoming stale, some water freezing, a grenade exploding, a person standing up, a dog dying, black hair becoming white. All of these are examples of change. In each of the examples, something became different somehow, whether it is its position, its state of matter, its color, its taste or even what it is. This is the very definition of change, the process by which something becomes different.

Change is something that we see everyday in the world around us. It affects us constantly, whether we want it to or not. For this reason, it is important that we strive understand it. This was clear to several Greek philosophers of ancient times, namely Heraclitus, Parmenides and Aristotle. Each of these philosophers came up with his own explanation to change. However, only one of them was right. Now, I shall explain each of the three explanations, revealing the flaws in the two incorrect ones.

HERACLITUS

He based his philosophy on his senses. To explain the phenomenon of change, he simply looked at things, felt things, tasted things, listened to things and smelled things. Through observation of the world around him, he deduced that everything is changing, all the time. He stated that change is constant in all things, giving rise to the expression “nothing is constant, except change”. This implied that no thing can remain the same thing, except in one point in time, denying the existence of any sort of permanence. For example, if I had a bowl of hot soup now, two seconds from now, it is no longer the same bowl of hot soup. It has cooled (albeit just a bit), and is therefore different soup. Morally, it meant that there is no permanent standard for right and wrong, that what is wrong today may be right tomorrow. What Heraclitus failed to see is that his philosophy disproved itself. If everything were indeed changing constantly, than even his philosophy has no permanence. Heraclitus failed to use his reason and based everything solely on his senses, and this was the downfall of his philosophy.

PARMENIDES

We can say that he was the complete opposite of Heraclitus, in perspective and in philosophy. Rather than approach things using his senses, he denied his senses. He claimed that our senses deceive us. Thus, he used purely his reason in explaining things. He began his philosophy with the universally accepted idea that nothing comes from nothing. Parmenides explained that because something cannot come from nothing, all reality must have always been there. He then went on saying that the notion of change implies new attributes of in things arising out of nothing. For example, when black hair becomes white, the new white color must have come out of nothing. It is this idea of something out of nothing that led Parmenides to conclude that change is an illusion. He stated that change is logically impossible, and is therefore false. However, Parmenides’ philosophy was unreasonable, and missing in its analysis. It was missing because of the fact that it excluded the senses. It is through the senses that we perceive reality, ignoring them and basing everything on reason is (ironically) irrational.

ARISTOTLE

Now that the two wrong philosophies have been set aside, I will explain the correct philosophy. Aristotle struck a balance between Parmenides and Heraclitus, between reason and the senses. His philosophy acknowledged the fact that something cannot come from nothing. He explained that the new attributes in things after change has occurred have actually always been there. Aristotle says that while we are not able to perceive these new attributes in things before change, they are there in potency. Thus, going back to the hair example, while the black hair does not really have white in it; it has the potency to become white. In contrast to the notion of potency, Aristotle said that the attributes a thing has in the present are in act, as they have been actualized. Aristotle’s philosophy meant that permanence is possible, as certain parts of a thing may change, without making something a whole new thing. Thus, the black hair, after turning white, is still the same hair, but with a change in color. The thing that stays what it is (the hair in the example) is what Aristotle called the subject.

TYPES OF CHANGE

Now that I have explained the phenomenon of change, I go on to explain the two types of change.

Following Aristotle’s philosophy on change, we see that a thing can change without becoming a totally different thing. This is the more common type of change. It is called accidental change. Examples of this include: the change in position of a car as it moves, the change of color in a picture as it fades and the change of form of ice as it melts. In each of these examples, the thing remains to be what it was. The car is still a car, the picture still a picture and the water still water.

The other type of change is the change wherein a certain thing becomes a whole new thing. This change is called substantial change. Here are a few examples: a paper burning and becoming ash, a tree being cut down and made a table and a grenade exploding. These are substantial because in each example, something becomes something else. The paper is now ash, the tree is now a table and the grenade is now shrapnel.

CONCLUSION

Change is a very interesting phenomenon. It has caused great confusion and debate among philosophers for centuries. It is my hope that through this blog, you have come to understand more the true nature of change. I leave you to ponder on a quote from Aristotle himself:

“Change in all things is sweet.”