Variations on a Theme: The Nature of Change and its Role in the Cosmos

Change (chānj) v.t.

1, make different; alter.

2, replace by another; substitute.

3, give and take reciprocally; exchange.

--v.i. become different; pass from one condition or state to another.

–n. 1, alteration; modification; transformation.

2 substitution; exchange.

3, variety; novelty.

What exactly is change, and how does it function and interact with the rest of the universe? Since the answer affects any subsequent theories on the universe, its substance and organization, this is a question that occupies a significant part of Presocratic thought. Within the individual philosophies of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Zeno, theories of change and how it interacts with the universe are not so dissimilar, in that change is only a variation on a single theme.

The philosophic theories most commonly recognized as Pythagorean are those of numbers and ordering the universe. This imposed order does not inherently suggest that change holds a significant role in the universe. However, Pythagoreans also held more spiritual beliefs that included a distinct definition of the nature of change. According to Pythagoras, the soul is immortal, and transmigrates to into a new body after the old body dies. Because of this continual alteration of the physical form in which a soul manifests itself, change is a logical requirement.

These definitions of change do not imply that change is chaotic—rather, it is like the rest of the universe in that it is organized into a certain pattern: “things…recur at certain intervals, and nothing is absolutely new.” This regulated allowance for change allows even such unstable occurrences, but ultimately encourages the universal harmonia according to which all that exists is organized.  To serve this cosmic balance is the natural conclusion to everything—soul or substance—that comes into being. 

Whereas Pythagoras’ cosmology is based on numeric patterns, Heraclitus based his philosophy on logos, an objective truth that guides and orders the universe. The physical manifestation of logos is fire, which is continually the same, yet always in flux. According to Heraclitus, “things are taken together are whole and not whole…being brought together and brought apart, in tune and out of tune; out of all things there comes a unity, and out of a unity all things.”

 

Heraclitus’ use of fire imagery obligates him not only to acknowledge the reality of change, but that its necessary in the universal law makes it a requirement. The concept of change is not only essential in the universe, but it is the only constant of the universe. This constant of change somehow creates stability because everything in existence through “changing, it rests.”

  

This dichotomous theory of change as stability is illustrated in Heraclitus’ statement that “we step into and we do not step into the same rivers. We are and we are not.” To explain: a person does step into the same river in that they are returning to the same place, but they do not step into the same river because the conditions of that place have entirely changed because it is impossible to return to the same time and conditions as before. Despite this alteration in time and space, under the law of logos, “…all things are one.”

Both previous views of change are challenged by the Parmenidean philosopher Zeno, who attempts to disprove the possibility for change’s existence. According to Zeno, there is no change: everything in existence is essentially the same substance, and since there is only one substance then there is no real alteration in place, time, or object. For him, the possibility of motion and change is problematic, since any logical evolution of such an argument leads to contradictory conclusions. 

By process of elimination, Zeno attempts to disprove the validity of change by discrediting the characteristics of change: a place for change, a time for change, and the motion that allows change to be enacted. As for the first characteristic, Zeno cannot define place, saying that “if place exists, where is it? For everything that exists is in a place. Therefore, place is in a place. This goes on to infinity. Therefore, place does not exist.” 

Time is also not definable since time is composed of ‘nows’...everything is always at rest when it occupies a space equal to itself, and what is moving is always ‘in the now,’ the moving arrow is motionless.” Every divisible segment of time holds existence in the present, with no capacity for other tenses such as past and future that would allow for the existence of time. 

Zeno deals with the concept of motion in a similar fashion, stating that “…there is no motion because that which is moving must reach the midpoint before the end.” Just as the passage of time is characterized by past, present and future, the distance between two points is characterized by its having a beginning, middle, and end. Zeno theorizes that if motion were possible, anyone traveling to the midpoint would only continue to travel in exponentially smaller lengths, resulting in their never reaching the endpoint. Therefore Zeno claims that there is no such thing as motion. 

In spite of any logical arguments to the contrary, experience tells us that we move, we walk from one place to another, and we notice from sensory data the alteration between different places and times.  So how does Zeno explain the human perception of change? He responds that this perception is an illusion, and that sensory experience is deceitful. This argument relies on the theory that everything is made up of the same substance: if two perceived places are made up of the same thing, then there is no difference between the two—any perceived dissimilarity is a false impression. 

Although he would probably disagree, Zeno’s monism is not in direct contradiction of previous theories. Both Pythagoras and Heraclitus acknowledge the possibility of change in the universe, but their concept of change as a chaotic force, but merely that it precipitates variations on a theme. This does not oppose a universe comprised of only one substance, since it is possible to have a substance, a liquid for example, which can flux and change within itself, yet remain essentially the same.

Change, like everything else in existence, is subject to the ruling force that governs the manner in which the universe operates, be it with numbers like the philosophy of Pythagoras, or with logos in that of Heraclitus. In both cases, change plays the role not of the instigator of chaos, but that of a universal constant, just as Zeno was trying to promote. Ultimately, Zeno’s radical departure from previous philosophies of change is not so radical at all, but is merely a continuation of the evolving concepts of change.