Both Heraclitus and Parmenides, each in his own way, denied the possibility of change. A thing, in going from having P , and thus being a P -thing, to lacking P , apparently becomes what it is not, namely a nonP -thing. Since, according to Parmenides, nothing can become what it is not, no thing can change. Heraclitus seems to have found nothing to complain about in Parmenides’ argument. Yet, he...
