David Gallop

parmenides' similarity to heraclitus comes from teh fact that for p being is unchangeable such that the only essential characteristic things can have is that they exist as part of a whole continuum of things that exist (since they r indistinct from one another -- the only meaningful distinction btwn things is btwn existence and non-existence -- they are all the same thing) nd heraclitus in talking abt things takes for granted that they exist (ie non-being cant exist) and then as well says nothing else distinguishes things from one another essentially bc things r in constant change but things never stop existing for him like parmenides

parmenides only denies becoming because for him there is already no difference (ie no difference in being) and for heraclitus teh lack of difference comes from becoming (but then becoming becomes being so they end up being the same anyway) but once u see past teh specific words they use things r like the same for them nd the way they phrase their arguments is based on that difference in teh order of their thikning

ty for reading teh product of my bawling philosophical infancy… (meer)