Parmenides#
Revised
12 Apr 2023
Parmenides of Elea#
a philosopher of constitutive forces
the origin of geometry, Husserl: Jacob Klein
reified symbols in modern mathematics
abstraction
phenomenological project, connect the manipulation of symbols
physis, ontology, structure of nature
physei onta, natural beings
Aristotle asserted Parmenides wasn’t talking about nature
standard narrative
Heraclitus, dualism, philosopher of tension and opposition
Parmenides proposes monism in response
Heraclitus, things seem dualistic, but really a monism
Heraclitus and Parmenides are usually played off of each other
Heraclitus uses language artfully
Parmenides, the ultimate monist, the logician
these are problematic assumptions, trumped up by the history of philosophy
two ways she makes her argument
posing questions that can’t be answered; by posing these questions, she leads the listener to make certain kinds of conclusions which she undermines later on
the kind of insight she’s communicating, beyond the words to the phenomenon, only a god can have that kind of experience
two paths
the persuasive way
the mortal way
aleitheia, the way of truth 2-8
the way of the pinions of mortals
mythos, story, for the purpose of persuasion
Parmenides
characterization of being
opinion
his impact on early greek thinking, in the form of Democritus
nothing is non existent
Stephen Hawking
Hegel: being is nothing, saying something about being presupposes something
foundational in some ways
being is an empty concept bc it applies to everything, almost exchangeable with non being
Hegel’s philosophy of logic: being turns over into non being: dialectical
Hegel, Sartre, continentalism: negation is particular
Parmenides’ nonbeing is probably Aristotle’s, from Plato
Aristotle: all negation is specific
has to negate being as a whole, therefore there can’t be negation
Aristotle: no, negation is always particular
Parmenides: not is, is not
substantive: there is no being that is not
Heidegger tries to verbalize Parmenides’ account of being and non being and turn it into a dynamic
Heraclitus
how different elements turn into each other, a flow
fragment 34, dynamism
the ever livingness, not to the fire being lit, but to the dynamism of fire
focus on something specific, see the broader context
the question of form vs matter
Aristotle: look at the proximate material, the next level down that is explanatory
Timaeus
world soul
what constitutes an organized whole
mereology
persuasion through myth/story
is vs is not
is not is not
there are no features which we can attribute to is not
when it comes to being, there is no such thing as an opposite; opposition doesn’t function
no concept can go higher than being and introduce this notion of opposition to being
Plato’s to agethon, there is no opposite of the good
either being is fundamnetal or concepts are fundamental
concept of opposition above, prior to being
if the framework for all that is is a concept, then it would make sense that we have this opposition
by ruling out non being, no opposite to being, rule out the possibility that concepts are more basic than being
concepts are not even equiprimordial to being
Parmenides: being is not a concept, not mediated by concepts: being is
my concepts can coincide with it in some way
Plato’s forms, on the level of being and the good is higher than being
no concepts apply to being, so can only say being is; everything else is doxa
logic/concepts/relations are fundamental
affirm or deny a thing, this is the same, this is different
being follows the structure of logic, there can be opposites
not discursive knowledge, intuition, unification of subject and object
i am a particular, i am in a network of relations, difference, opposition; concepts for me include these categories
Parmenides: do not apply these concepts to being
i distinguish between the trees and the wind, but the trees and the wind don’t distinguish between the trees and the wind
fragment 3 “the same is thinking and being”
20th century anglosaxon tradition
existential is, out of Fregean logic
predicative is, x is y
interpretation of Parmenides in which Parmenides employing predication being
no trace in Parmenides of attributes and subjects, essential things and contingent things
a predicative is introduces a difference, means x and y are different in some way and the same in another way
radical identification: there is nothing else to think other than being
all thinking is of being
it’s impossible to have something that is not being
but it still subjectivizes thinking, that belongs to the individual
whenever I think, I’m thinking about being
when Parmenides is talking about thinking, he’s not talking about individual thinking
when I ascend to the level of being, then thinking is being
not a genuine thought to think/say unicorn, square circle, etc.
discursive thinking
logical, linear, sequential, dialectical
non discursive thinking
intuition, not logical
unification of subject of thinking and object thinking
Parmenides: not asserting an identity between thinking on the one hand and being on the other hand
thinking just is being
sameness is
there is no difference between x and y, x is just y
being and sameness: Heidegger’s identity and difference
Plato: ascend upward toward first principles
argument and the direction of thinking
synthesis
analysis
Fragment 8
Parmenides making arguments for the essential features of being
concept of generation, genesis, coming into being, necessarily includes a concept of non being
to get necessity out of the failure to move something as an interesting rhetorical move
difference > negation > non being
Aristotle: yellow is not pink, but not essential to what pink is
Parmenides: turning difference into negation
forms of difference; difference a category bigger than any of these forms
otherness
likeness
negation
opposition
negation is the paradigm for all difference, all other forms under negation
sameness and identity and being go together
difference goes with non being
Heraclitus
differences are generative
differences ARE
differences are the sources of being
difference implies negation, nonbeing
whatever is associated with non being, then being has to have the opposite properties
if non being is change, coming to be passing away, then being can’t change, can’t come to be pass away
being is not actually these things; look for ways that things are not changing and then you’ll find your way back to being
otherwise there is a logical incoherence
Karl Popper’s falsification, ideas come Parmenides
Xenophanes, let these things be believed as if they were the truth
ways of opinion
ways of understanding natural phenomena using concepts of opposites
way of truth
opposites aren’t fundamental, they don’t work on the level of being, don’t posit them as the basis of things
Aristotle: Parmenides made things one (being), but in some ways two (the causes that generate things)
Parmenides may’ve caught sight of the origin of motion, even though he rejects the existence of motion on the level of being
Democritus, Leucippus
atoms “uncuttable”
do they have a spatial, material quality?
ultimate parts, too small to be grasped by the senses, many shapes
infinite in quantity
as atoms, they do not change; if they were cuttable, they would change
according to Parmenides, things do not change
Aritotle adduces the following arguments from Democritus
presume that a body is divisible, to points -> nothing
therefore there must be basic things with extensions, so atoms
Aristotle disagrees with this, it’s not possible to divide things, doesn’t make sense
Democritus, parts and their relation to one another
figure, schema
order, taxin (organized in relation to one another)
oriented, thesin
putting these together, we get a chemical description of things, a robust account
Parmenides, Heraclitus
body without reducing it to parts
Heraclitus: tensors, lines of tension, balance, constitutes a unity
focused on unity
Parmenides: wholes, not parts
focused on unity
Democritus: things are constituted by parts
negating the unity of things
parts don’t constitute a unity, nothing emerges from that
Democritus
unity has no being, parts have being
the problem of emergence
Democritus moves out of necessity (Heraclitus, Parmenides)
relations are contingent, accidental
προοιμιον proem
το εον What Is αληθεια true reality
Alcmaeon of Croton#
limited epistemic status of humans vs divine certainty
Empedocles of Akragas#
ριζωματα element, root
πυρ fire
αηρ air
υδωρ water
γη earth
Xenophanes of Colophon#
rejects divine authority
opens up the possibility of inquiry into the sources of human knowledge