It's commonly understood that Parmenides denied the reality of change. That the world we perceive is an illusion. But is Parmenides better understood as the SEP indicates:

Both Plato and Aristotle understood Parmenides as perhaps the first to have developed the idea that apprehension of what is unchanging is of a different order epistemologically than apprehension of things subject to change.

That is the changing every day world is real, that there is an unchanging world that is also real. That both are dependent on each other. That both are epistemologically real. One via reason, the other via sense. That neither is epistemologically or ontologically prior to the other.

On this reading Parmenides has isolated and distilled the idea of an unchanging aspect of the world from our immediate apprehension of a changing world universalised by Heraclitus.

From an early time Heraclitus was seen as the representative of universal flux in contrast to Parmenides, the representative of universal stasis. Cratylus brought Heraclitus' philosophy to Athens, where Plato heard it. Plato seems to have used Heraclitus' theory (as interpreted by Cratylus) as a model for the sensible world, as he used Parmenides’ theory for the intelligible world.

It appears to me that both Parmenides & Heraclitus were both aware of a sensible & intelligible world, and that each emphasised one side of this. Is this a form of Dualism? The SEP entry on Dualism is focused on the Philosophy of Mind, but in passing it does mention that there are other kinds of Dualism.

  • 3
    If he was a dualist, this is a groundbreaking discovery. Parmenides is customarily considered the most extreme monist in the history of philosophy :) He did have, in his book, a discussion of two "ways": a way of truth and a way of opinion. This is normally interpreted as saying that the monism developed in the way of truth is, well, true; and the less bizarre picture of the world in the way of opinion is what those unable to convince themselves of what the way of truth says should believe. – Schiphol Mar 3 '13 at 21:21
  • @Schipol: I think it probably depends on the various differing technical meanings of Dualism. For all I know what I've elaborated above may be termed under a different nomenclature altogether:) – Mozibur Ullah Mar 4 '13 at 0:29
  • 1
    No, I think you understand what dualism is. The epistemological "different order" the SEP entry you link to alludes to is the difference between truth and opinion -- only the unchanging world is really real, according to Parmenides. – Schiphol Mar 4 '13 at 16:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.