more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Early thinkers made the mistake of claiming that nothing comes to be or ceases to be, on the grounds that for anything to come to be it would have to come either from what is or from what is not, but that neither of these is possible.
Gist of Idea
Do things come to be from what is, or from what is not? Both seem problematical.
Source
Aristotle (Physics [c.337 BCE], 191a27)
Book Ref
Aristotle: 'Physics', ed/tr. Waterfield,Robin [OUP 1996], p.28
A Reaction
Nothing in modern physics has (I think) solved this problem. On the one hand we have the conservation of energy, and on the other the Big Bang. Some talk of 'quantum fluctuations' triggering coming-to-be. Hm.
| 8154 | Originally there must have been just Existence, which could not come from non-existence [Anon (Upan)] |
| 1746 | The parts of all things are susceptible to change, but the whole is unchangeable [Anaximander, by Diog. Laertius] |
| 420 | The cosmos is eternal not created, and is an ever-living and changing fire [Heraclitus] |
| 456 | Nothing could come out of nothing [Melissus] |
| 16595 | If each thing can cease to be, why hasn't absolutely everything ceased to be long ago? [Aristotle] |
| 5083 | Do things come to be from what is, or from what is not? Both seem problematical. [Aristotle] |
| 20827 | The cosmos is regularly consumed and reorganised by the primary fire [Stoic school, by Aristocles] |
| 5694 | Nothing can be created by divine power out of nothing [Lucretius] |