Parmenides

Western Philosophy 1
Modules 5
Gerlie C. Ogatis- PUP Manila
 Parmenides, he would respond to Miletian
dilemma in his manner of philosophizing.
 His position was an opposite stroke taken by
Heraclitus, he eliminated becoming.
 He is the first philosopher in the West to speak
directly and exclusively about being, an explicit
direct articulation of being in the form of
Parmenidean logos
 He was born in the town of Elea, around 515 BC, Elea is located in Southern Italy, because
the Greek world had expanded prior to 515 BC.
 Parmenides will tell us that there are 3 basic thoughts that human being can entertain (3 basic
concepts or ideas or possibilities)
1. Being is
2. Non-being is
3. Both being and non-being are- becoming is (involved both concept of being and non-being)
 (2) Non-being is= very simply, non-being is an impossible idea, it is unintelligible despite the
fact that we give it some sort of name it cannot be thought of.
 Non-being as an idea destroys other ideas, that is why even becoming is not intelligible for
Parmenides.
 Becoming involves being and non-being, it implies the concept is not, therefore, it is likewise a
bogus concept if properly analyzed.
 He is a conceptual analyst, to analyze is to break concepts
into different parts. Non-being is deadly, it destroys other
ideas that is why it is also impossible to think of it.
 Non-being and becoming are both unintelligible.
 Doxa= translated as opinion. For Parmenides it is similar to
appearance, the way things seem to be.
 He must completely reject doxa, he must insist that in
doxa, in appearances, in the way things seem, there is no
truth whatsoever.
 Truth is aletheia, there is a radical break between doxa and aletheia.
 It seems part of his proposal is not to let ordinary experience deceive us,
he is saying, judge by reason alone, do not let habit deceive you. He is a
pure rationalist in this case, he is utterly derogatory towards experience.
 He is against empiricist, empiricist came from the Greek emperia, which
is experience.
 Thales, and Aristotle are empirical thinkers, they seem to be saying look
around notice that water is responsible for life, water is the arche.
Anaximander is saying that the arche is not a limited substance like
water, thus, his promotion of apeiron. Like Parmenides, Anaximander is
a rationalist.
 The statement “being is”- is the only statement that does not contradict itself.
By contrast the very notion of becoming is contradictory- it implies being is and
is not.
 Parmenides abhors contradiction above all else, for him, being is eternal.
Being cannot come into being nor can it perish.
 Being cannot come into being because of the dilemma, where will it come
from, because if it transforms into being, it must come from a non-being.
 Being cannot go out of being, where would it go to? It can only go to non-
being. So, for him, being is therefore eternal
 Being is indivisible, cannot be divided into parts, being is one, utterly unified
and has no internal divisions- if being is divisible, then one part is not the same
with other parts (it will carry with it the contradictory word- is not)
 Internal division is prohibited because it will imply a possibility of non-
being which is an illegal term.
 Parmenides is adamant to follow the logos in its different ways, and it
means sacrificing what is more familiar to us, doxa.
 Heraclitus by contrast welcomes experience, experience is shot
through in the world of becoming, experience is alive.
 Life itself for Heraclitus is like a river, he was trying to give justice to
whatever we might have in our ordinary experience.
 Eventually, so much of philosophy is divided between empiricist and
rationalist
