why is it there is no constant in this world?

Question

why is it there is no constant in this world?

Answer 1

From the beginning of philosophy, thinkers have struggled with the tension between permanence and change. The question of whether anything constant exists in this world cuts to the core of human existence, for it asks not only about the nature of reality, but also about the meaning we attach to it. The philosophical tradition, both Eastern and Western, have sought to understand whether the universe offers any true constancy or whether change itself is the only continuing truth.

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus was among the first to assert that change is the fundamental nature of reality. His famous statement, “Everything flows (panta rhei),” captures the essence of impermanence. For him, the universe is a living fire — always kindling, always extinguishing. Stability is a false perception; we only believe in constants because our minds impose order upon change. Thus, the only true constant is change itself.

Plato, however, responded by distinguishing between two realms: the world of becoming (the sensory, material world) and the world of being (the eternal Forms or the word of forms). In the physical world, everything decays; no object or relationship can escape time. True constancy exists only beyond this world — in the realm of Ideas, where truth, beauty, and goodness are perfect and unchanging. For Plato, the philosopher’s task is to turn the soul away from the transient and toward what is eternal.

Aristotle, Plato’s student, shifted the focus from ideal permanence to natural change. He saw change as a process of potentiality becoming actuality — a tree growing from a seed, for instance. Yet even Aristotle recognized that the material world is subject to corruption and decay. For him, stability lies not in resisting change but in fulfilling one’s natural purpose — in reaching the full realization of one’s form.

Later thinkers continued this exploration. The Stoics accepted impermanence as part of divine order, teaching that all things unfold according to the logos, the rational structure of the cosmos.

In the East, Buddhist philosophy expressed a similar insight through the doctrine of anicca (impermanence): all conditioned things arise and pass away. To cling to permanence, said the Buddha, is to suffer.

In modern thought, Nietzsche declared the “death of God,” rejecting eternal, fixed values and insisting that meaning must be created anew. Existentialists such as Heidegger and Sartre echoed this, claiming that human existence is defined by becoming rather than being — that we are always in the process of creating ourselves.

From My Own Perspective

From my own perspective, change defines all living things. Every creature — human, animal, or plant — undergoes transformation from birth to death. Growth, decay, and renewal are woven into the very pattern of life. The essence of being alive is movement: the continual process of adapting, learning, and evolving. Even the mind changes, shaped by new experiences and shifting emotions. In this sense, constancy within life is only relative — it exists as continuity through change, not as stillness.

As the coin has two sides, in philosophy there is this and that at the same time,

In contrast, many human-made or non-living things appear more stable. Statues, buildings, and monuments seem to defy time, standing as symbols of permanence. Yet even they are not truly constant. Weathering, erosion, and the passage of centuries slowly alter their form. What endures is not the material itself but the idea or purpose behind its creation — the artistic vision, cultural meaning, or memory it embodies. Thus, while their physical existence may seem steady, their significance evolves with each generation that interprets them anew.

Even in technology, such as vehicles or machines, there is a paradox between constancy and change. The basic essence — the idea of motion and connection — remains constant, but the forms, materials, and functions continue to evolve. This reflects a deeper truth: constancy is not found in objects, but in the principle of transformation that guides them.

In the theists point of view they might argue that constancy lies in God, the “unmoved mover,” as Aristotle described — the eternal source that causes all motion without itself changing. Others, however, may see divinity not as a static being but as the very process of becoming, whatever it is the reality of change remains the same: everything that exists participates in transformation.

Therefore, constancy in this world is not absolute. Everything material is bound by time, and everything alive is shaped by change. What remains constant, if anything, is not form but essence — the continuity of becoming. Perhaps the only true constant is the rhythm of transformation itself, the eternal dance between what is and what is yet to be.