Being and Becoming

Being has a much harder time trying to prove itself to the average man. If all matter exists, then it is Being, for it is recognizable as evidently existing. But if it is Being, then it is locked in a stasis existence meaning that Being and Becoming can overlap. But, as stated before, there is no question that change is viewed everyday, so it can not be that only one exists by itself. And Becoming makes no claims to exist outside of Being. Rather, Becoming could be a part of Being. And if Being means something more than just existing, there is a questionable logic behind what this Being is. For the definition would provide too narrow of meaning to include everything. Becoming is more of a verb than an adjective by its definition, so it is easy to say that a cat can Become as much as a tree or a baseball. And while it is Becoming, it is existing, and being. But if it is Being, then it can not differ and can not be Becoming. So therefore, Being is the weaker of the two theories for it provides man with a more narrow logic and questionable interpretation of existence.

While Being does have its strong points, and Becoming its weak, the two can not fully compete with each other. Being lacks some vital backbones to the argument, suggesting that even Parmenides didn't quite understand how to explain himself and therefore wasn't a hundred percent sure of what it means to be. Heraclitus on the other hand provides a definition, that though apparently more broad at first glance, is only seen this way because it is more evidently provable and therefore more accurate its in definition. In the end, it is Becoming that really shines as the stronger of the two theories. It provides for a more understandable and less interpretable argument. There is clarity in what is being said and presented