Everything does not pass of appearances. Of the appearance of this perspective, or this interaction. from there we conclude that an essence for the things does not exist temporarily, since everything is changedded at every moment, leaving of being, same that conserving something, until, in continuous transformations, already not conserve nothing of what we consider the starting point, not to be the proper condition to continue moving, to keep the movement. Therefore, it, or the ideal does not exist the thing in inhabiting the world of the ideas, as it wanted Plato. It has only something, that already left of being in the following instant. The perpetual one to flow, the perpetual one to come to be, as Heraclitus would say. The same valley for I. To start for the body? Freud said in them that I am before everything one corporal I.
Nobody doubts of the physical transformations that a baby passes until arriving at the oldness. But we go attempting against in them for psychological I. I of the child am the same I Mr.? To be I to the eighty years am the same that to be I to the eight? Has a perfect identity between these two Eus? It is possible to have been, not to be more, and to continue being? To be and not-to be? ' ' In them we never bathe two times in the same rio' ' , Heraclitus said has 2500 years more than behind. But and the question of the identity? How I can say that I am not more the same of has ten years, and affirm that I the same continue being to be? if to repeat that everything does not pass of a time scale? Of a movement space-time? A gradual change, in which some characteristic of the previous thing, of previous I, remain in the thing, in following I, until in a gigantic scale of time (to the human look, he is clearly, if we assume the perpetual one), does not remain more nothing of that thing or that one initial I.