New answers tagged


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 ...


I feel your argument works. It is one of the arguments used in the Perennial tradition to show the impossibility of change. Change is seen to occur but the idea of change doesn't work when we assume the essential or fundamental reality of the changing object. So your argument is not actually against perceived change, which is simply a fact, but against the ...


In a nutshell, the sensible world is "Heraclitean" because it is the locus of change (becoming) while Plato's Forms are immutable, like Parmenides' being.


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 ...

Top 50 recent answers are included