7

Welcome, Delforge Heraclitus and constant change - a vexed question THE thought of Heraclitus of Ephesus is still often summarized as " All things are flowing ", panta rhei; by which it is inferred that everything is in constant change. This summary goes back ultimately to Plato, who at Cratylus, 402a, wrote as follows: " Heraclitus says ...


5

Parmenides introduces an early version of the problem of negative existentials. In modern times, this has been construed as a problem about the relationship between reference and meaning and the linguistic mechanics of singular terms, existential quantification, de re/de dicto distinctions, etc. For Parminedes, of course, the problem appears as a problem ...


4

What is "not-being" ? The absence of being or something else ? See Parmenides' Poem : Come now, I shall tell—and convey home the tale once you have heard—/ just which ways of inquiry alone there are for understanding:/ the one, that [it] is and that [it] is not not to be,/ is the path of conviction, for it attends upon true reality,/ ...


3

Parmenides's is certainly the best because it is based on solid principles like that of non-contradiction* and that something cannot come from nothing†.*It is impossible that the same thing be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. †Ex nihilo nihil fit. His arguments are summarized in ch. 5 "Article One: Potency Really Distinct From Act" of ...


3

Leonardo Tarán discusses in detail lines 42-49 in Fragment VIII (pages 150-160). Here are some comments on those pages. He claims "The ancients were already divided about the interpretation to be given to the comparison of Being with a ball or sphere." (page 150). He initially concerns himself "with the arguments that have been adduced to assert that the ...


3

It is curious that Parmenides's argument seems wrong today while back in the day someone as expert as Plato thought that it was obviously right. Indeed, one of the drives behind Plato's system was resolving the puzzle that Parmenides and Heraclitus were both right. Let me strip the argument down to bare bones. P1(Panlogicism) Only that which is thinkable is ...


3

As a matter of fact, Quine completely adopted Russell's response to Parmenides's argument. This is explicit in Quine's "on what there is" (1948). Curiously, Quine related that argument to Plato rather than to Parmenides. Quine even humorously nicknamed the argument Plato's Beard, to match the infamous Occam's Razor. This is the old Platonic riddle of ...


3

Hegel described himself in the case of dialectic (as in many others) as standing on the shoulders of Kant. Kant's antinomies of reason were examples of dialectic, which Hegel took to a much greater scale. In modern times it was, more than any other, Kant who resuscitated the name of Dialectic, and restored it to its post of honour. He did it, as we have ...


3

The rest frame of relativity is at rest by definition. More concretely the COBE experiment shows the earth's velocity relative to the visible universe as a whole taken as a rest frame beyond which no other larger frame is known.


3

I couldn't find any article reporting the original formulation by Parmenides. There are extant fragments of Parmenides' Poem; see e.g. WikiSource for the English (by John Burnet) translation: "The first [principle], namely, that It is, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the way of belief, for truth is its companion." [Fr.2] "One path ...


2

Yes, the original atomic theory, usually attributed to Leucippus and Democritus, was formed in part as a response to Parmenides' arguments against the reality of movement, and to the related paradoxes of Zeno's. The Democratic atom possesses some of the properties of the Parmenidian One: It is neither created, nor destroyed. It also never changes, ...


2

The Greek terms are: good = agathos, beautiful = kalos, just = dikaios, the one = to hen, god = theos. I do not remember any passage from Plato where he equates to hen = theos. I assume the apotheosis of to hen is due to later new-Platonic philosophy.


2

There is an extra premise for this argument to become an argument against change. Judging by how Parmenides and Zeno generally argued it might be something like this: since the present is fleeting and words do have meanings time and change must be illusions, and only the unchangeable meanings truly exist. This would also be an argument for Plato's immutable ...


2

Introduction I think there are two points to consider: 1) The way philosophy worked these days, i.e. through poetry and 2) The problem of being "lost in translation". I think most of us underestimate the wisdom of ancient Greek philosophy. I think that there may even be good reasons for expressing deep insights into the very fabric of Being and our place ...


2

There are chemical processes in the fruit, a bit crudely it's just atoms “moving around” If you really want to keep a strict separation of Being and Non-Being, movement is also contradictory. For the movement of an object from point A to B involves a transition from Being to Non-Being at point A, and from Non-Being to Being at B. If we focus at point A, we ...


2

You're asking quite a few questions here, but the at the root it seems you're asking about the principle of individuation, i.e., What makes something an individual? What makes this dog different from that dog? St. Thomas Aquinas (De Ente et Essentia chap. 3) argues that the principle of individuation is "materia signata quantitate" ("matter signed with ...


2

Parmenides developed an argument that forced his interlocuters to grapple with the problem of change. So far from 'dismissing' Parmenides they were taking him seriously. There are two main attempts: a. atomism, developed by Democritus and Leucippus. b. actuality/potentiality, developed mainly by Aristotle. There are modern revivals of both, the former in ...


2

Parmenides' fragments are not easy to manage ... It seems that the notion of "limit" is connected to the rejection of the infinite by many ancient Greek philosophers. See Aristotle, Phys.III, 6, 206a9-on : The infinite, then, exists in no other way, but in this way it does exist, potentially and by reduction. The infinite turns out to be the ...


2

I am not familiar with the research literature, but the given interpretation does not make sense to me. And this for two reasons. First, the opinion of the so called "mortals" is an entirely marginal issue. It is definitely not part of Parmenides's main argument. In the main argument, Parmenides lays out his view as to the truth itself, as to how things are....


2

I think you can make arguments both ways. Really what you are doing is defining two terms "rest" and "motion." You can define them any way you please, so long as they do not confuse. The Chinese, in particular, have a strong tendency in their philosophy to talk about relative motion, exactly as you suggest. Their philosophies appear to my Western eyes to ...


2

See Aristotle's Natural Philosophy: Nature, according to Aristotle, is an inner principle of change and being at rest. Thus, change is the central concept of A's natural philosophy. According to A, every type of change is definable in the same way as a "motion" form potentiality to actuality. What differs is the way this happens, according to the ...


2

The Liar Paradox has rather long story, starting around 600BC, and which mentions Eubulides, Chrysippus, Aristotle and other Greek thinkers: this is an indirect proof that for them lying would have been somehow possible.In this line a further argument would be Marcia L Colish The stoic theory of verbal signification and the problem of lies and false ...


2

The argument seems to be a variation of Parmenides's argument against change, especially the premise "ex nihilo nihil fit" that being ("B" in your example) cannot come from nothing (to which "A" was reduced): If a thing arrives at existence it comes either from being or from nothing. Now it cannot come from being (statue from existing statue). Still ...


1

Does it follow, because and if falsehood of belief or utterance is impossible, therefore lying is impossible ? Lying involves an intent to mislead. Suppose, what is logically possible, that all liars intend to mislead but always, by incompetence or a misunderstanding of language, tell the truth ? On this scenario falsehood might still be impossible yet there ...


1

Aristotle's and Socrates's opinions are not representative of many Greek philosophers but their opinions carry much weight. Aristotle promoted deceit and Socrates "allowed" it under certain conditions. The following quotations of and about Aristotle and Socrates support my opinion. "that the man who is able to speak false is false (and this, of course, is ...


1

The argument for the uniformity (or homogeneity, or self-sameness) doesn't follow from the boundedness of what is. Parmenides introduces both uniformity and the argument for uniformity in the passage you're citing. The argument is: [...] it cannot be greater or smaller in one place than in another. For there is no nothing that could keep it from ...


1

See at least : Gregory Vlastos, The Third Man Argument in the Parmenides (1954) P.T. Geach, The Third Man Again (1956) S.Marc Cohen, The Logic of the Third Man (1971).


1

Comment But Pamenides writed before the Greek "birth" of logic; see his Poem. Thus, it is hard to analyze it in terms of "logical arguments". In a sense, we can say that logic was "codified" by Aristotle also reacting on Parmenides' younger associate : Zeno of Elea and his paradoxical arguments.


1

Though I cannot give you a truly good answer, I may be able to add a bit of direction. First, as you may know, Parmenides survives only through a very few ancient fragments, ancient references, and Plato's narrative. Yet strangely, much of modern physics remains "Parmenidean" in its treatment of spacetime and the mathematical "framing" of motion or change. ...


1

Okay in pieces: If a thing arrives at existence it comes either from being or from nothing. I don't think this particular bit is too hard to follow. Anything that exists exists either because it can from something else or because it just popped into existence. (if it eternally existed then it never arrived). If A, then B or N Now it cannot come from ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible