which his system stands to the philosophy of the Eleatics. First, then, the main themes with which both he and they were engaged in their attempts to reach and fix the absolute truth were Being and not-Being. Both parties agreed in fixing their attention on these two; but they differed in this respect, that whereas the Eleatics regarded Being and not-Being as distinct and separate conceptions, and as irreconcilable opposites mutually exclusive of each other, Heraclitus regarded them but as elements or moments of one conception, the conception, namely, of Becoming. Such very shortly, is the fundamental agreement and the fundamental difference between Heraclitus and the Eleatic philosophers. What they regarded as distinct conceptions, he regarded as the factors of one conception.
32. This being understood, the second point to consider is this, that with the Eleatics Being is the truth, Being is the universal principle, Being is the intelligible for all intellect; while, with Heraclitus, Becoming is the truth, Becoming is the universal principle, Becoming is the intelligible for all intellect. Being, say the Eleatics, is a necessary truth, a thought which all intellect must think. Not so, says Heraclitus; it is Becoming which corresponds to this description; and Becoming embraces Being merely as one of its elements, not-Being forming the other moment of that conception. Now, you will observe that Heraclitus, in taking up this position against
