Pre-Socratic View on Change-Motion
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