8/14/2019 Parmenides' Party

1/3

Parmenides Party(Complete with theoretical fun-house mirrors

and idealized, metaphorical ball games)

_________________________

Zach Barron

Reed College

Portland, OR

It is all continuous. (8.241). There is no beginning and no end and all is infinite

by necessity. At least, thats what Parmenides would tell you. Parmenides of Eleaemployed traditional reason in a rather radical manner to conclude that this sort of logical

continuity is the only way to explain what existence is. His poem survives only in

fragments but his influence on Platonic thought is evident. Parmenides attempted to

answer the question of being by denying the testimony of the material senses and turningto reason as the sole source on which to base his philosophy.

Parmenides argument stems from the premise that there are only two paths ofinquiry; The one, that it is and that it is not possible for it not to be the other, that it isnot and that it is necessary for it not to be. (2.3-2.5). This introduction establishes

existence, reality, and being as a very general and formless it. Throughout the

fragments this ambiguous it serves almost exclusively as the title for all that exists inthe universe. The purpose of this apparently vague term becomes increasingly apparent as

the argument is developed.

Parmenides tells us that only one of the proposed paths is feasible. That path is the

way of it is. Its interesting to note that in his explanation of this one logical path herefers to it as the path of Persuasion (for it attends upon Truth). (2.4). This implies that

for his purposes persuasion is comparable with truth. Both terms are capitalized and thus

elevated to a state of higher significance (at least by the translator if not Parmenides).This seems to be a reflection of the Greek political and social systems that paraded

oratory and rhetoric as glorified qualities similar to physical prowess. Especially for a

philosopher like Parmenides, persuasion would not have been viewed as a sort of trickeryor sleight of word but rather an essential and valued ability to convey a certain point of

view.

1 The only text that will be cited in this document is the chapter on Parmenides (pages 43-51) in A

Presocratics Reader and all citations are noted with the fragment number followed by the line(s) discussed.

8/14/2019 Parmenides' Party

2/3

The path of persuasion and truth, the path of it is, is contrasted with the way of

it is not. Parmenides warns us that this way of thinking will ultimately get its advocates

nowhere because if it is not, it cannot be thought. Nothing can be said about that whichyou cannot consider and does not exist. Parmenides cautions that this way is completely

unlearnable. (2.6) and no amount of deliberation can possibly yield any further

enlightenment than it is not, never has been, and never will be.Directly from the premise that it is Parmenides develops his short but essential

fragment three; the same thing is for thinking as for being. (3.1). As short as that

statement is it remains complex and open to a number of interpretations. The point thatflows most fluently with the rest of Parmenides argument is the basic idea that if it

exists, it can be thought about. The way his statement is phrased Parmenides implies that

the inverse must also be true. The idea that if you can conceive it, it must be real is less

readily admitted by the general public. That concept is much less intuitive but onlybecause of the conflicting views of what it means to think. Our modern idea that we can

think of anything violently collides with Parmenides belief that you can only truly think

of something that is. You may think that youre thinking of a dragon but there is no such

thing as a dragon so you cannot recreate one in your mind.Parmenides thinks on two levels. There is the basic level of reflection in which

thought can only reflect the physical world and something must be tangible to exist inthat sense. In this way the mind is simply a mirror but Parmenides suggests that this

mirror is merely an illusion. By denying the physical perceptions of reality and accepting

only that which reason tells him must be so Parmenides can say that the same thing is

for thinking as for being (3.1) and not fear the implications of inverting the sentence. Inthis way of thinking neither a dragon nor a book are ultimately real. A physical book can

be destroyed and if all books were destroyed all that would remain is the idea of book.

Parmenides mental mirror can only reflect that which has physical substance so if allbooks were destroyed books would pass out of existence in this corporeal way of

thinking. This gives rise to the second, mirror independent, way of thinking in which

nothing can pass into or out of existence. The only thing that Parmenides can be sure ofin this elevated state of reason is that he is thinking and therefore there is existence and to

label what it is that exists it not possible or necessary to go beyond that amorphous it.

To qualify the claim made in fragment three Parmenides proposes that Thatwhich is there to be spoken and thought of must be. For it is possible for it to be, but not

possible for nothing to be. (6.1-6.2). That is to say that indeed, if it is possible to think

about something that something must exist. This calls into question what it means to

exist. Assuming that Parmenides is discussing what is possible in his metaphysical realmof existence this statement serves purely to solidify fragment three. I propose however,

that Parmenides is attempting to bridge the gap between physical and metaphysical

existence. In each case that existence is much less about individual people and objectsthan it is about confirming that there is existence. If something exists then everything

exists and Parmenides doesnt have to judge the world by what has come into his

experience. An experientially based existence leaves room for individual perceptions oftruth and conflicting views of what is real. For the Egyptians hippopotami are very real

but to the tribes north of Greece such a beast can only be confined to abstract myth. Not

so in Parmenides way of thinking. If the hippopotamus is simply a part of it neither the

hippos physical state of being nor how individuals perceive that reality really matter.

8/14/2019 Parmenides' Party

3/3

Parmenides concludes that the only real existence is the one that is free of the

mental mirror. In this way of thinking nothing can be created or destroyed. Everything

that exists is infinite. In this argument the it that he throws about so liberally is nowshaped into a round ball, evenly balanced in every way from the middle. (8.44). This

round ball analogy is one that shows his view of existence as independent from physical

testimony and unchanging for everything. There is no truth of book and certainly none ofdragon but both are contained in the greater existence of it as everything. The details of

that it are irrelevant so long as there is existence and this is what Parmenides has

proved. He emphasizes the unchanging nature of existence by stating not only that beingungenerated it is also imperishable (8.2) but also that it is not lacking; if it were, it

would lack everything. (8.32-8.33). That which is real is inviolate and complete. Both

self contained and all encompassing it is everything because nothing could exist outside

of its limits.Here Parmenides ends his discourse. The obvious contention that most readers

take with Parmenides poem is the idea that you cant think about that which isnt real. Of

course I can think about a dragon, Im writing about a dragon! The fact that the word

exists bears testament to the fact that I can think and talk about this imaginary creature. IfI have never seen an elephant how is it real and a dragon, of which Ive read descriptions,

is not real? How is it possible to say that I cant think about that which isnt real?Parmenides would argue that in fact, you are not thinking of an elephant or a

dragon. Is there an elephant in your head? Of course not. When you say that you are

thinking of an elephant, which elephant are you thinking of? The elephant must have

been born at some specific time and will die at some later time. In this way the elephantonly exists between its birth and death. So before it was born and after it died it did not

exist? If something exists, if something is, that is its state of being. Following the premise

that it is or it is not, it cannot not exist and then spontaneously come into being. Likewiseit is impossible for it to degenerate and go out of being. The idea of a dragon must have

been created at some point by some imaginative individual and before that point the

concept of dragon did not exists. Therefore it is not.This response hinges on the acceptance of the premise that the only paths of being

are the two that Parmenides proposes. Using his argument that nothing can be created or

destroyed this is a satisfactory response. It relies on the same argument that develops hispoem. However, if you deny the premise that either it is or it is not, from the outset this

argument will not convince you of anything.