Parmenides of Elea: Logic Demands a Changeless Universe by Leonard Peikoff, part 4 of 50

[@HaIsKuL]

I like how the questions pile up as we go further into the course.

[@alexdetrojan4534]

One of the best presentations of Parmenides philosophy. 👍

[@111076tom]

Ray McG have been a pleasure to follow for decades. He has educated a lot of us, but it seems like he is facing the winter of life. Perhaps he should run for president...

[@philiprousseau7333]

at this point in history I would've probably given up on this whole philosophy thing and just said that it was just making people go mad

[@cas343]

Unfortunately what's what happened in the 18th century and now we still have philosohy but it's run by mad men

[@YashArya01]

Parmenides' philosophy was a repudiation of Heraclitus. [Metaphysics] 1:44: Parmenides' basic principle: "What is, is, and what is not, is not, and what is not can neither be, nor be thought about." 7:08 All concepts must be formed within existence, and refer to existence. Any theory which requires a concept of sheer nothing, according to Parmenides, is invalid on that ground. On the basis of this, Parmenides deduced 7:25: 1. The universe must be uncreated. (The universe has no beginning) 8:21: 2. The universe must be indestructible. (The universe has no end) Therefore, from 1 & 2, the universe is eternal. 9:00: 3. There is no vacuum in the universe. The universe is plenum - i.e solidly packed, completely full. His next deduction is where all the trouble comes in. 10:30: 4. Change (of any kind) is impossible. All motion, transformation, change, is a deception. The world is completely motionless/immutable. Every change is a double violation of his basic principle. In every change, something goes away, and something comes to be. There is a simultaneous passage from "what is" to "what is not" and "what is not" to "what is". 12:55: Heraclitus and Parmenides agree that change implies a contradiction (a violation of logic). Given this, they take opposite views. Heraclitus says: Change is obvious, so down with logic. Parmenides says: Logic is obvious, so down with change. Neither of them consider the possibility that change is not a violation of logic. For this we need to wait for Aristotle. 13:55 At this stage, the Greeks were primarily concerned with two things: Change and Multiplicity (there exist different things). Having denied Change, Parmenides further went on to deny Multiplicity. From his deduction #3, if the universe is completely and solidly packed, there's nothing to distinguish one part from another. It's just one undifferentiated slab of stuff. There's just one entity - Everything. He called it "The One." This notion is the precursor of the Christian god. [Epistemology] 15:28: The world is simply a motionless, immutable, undifferentiated ball. But that's not how it appears to our senses. Therefore, (in agreement with Heraclitus), Parmenides concluded that the senses are invalid. Only reason is valid. Therefore he was a Rationalist.

[@Shozb0t]

When he asked us to think of nothing, I think I succeeded: I thought about Seinfeld.

[@Mr.Witness]

The greatest of the pre socratics

[@YashArya01]

5:44 "It is impossible to think about what is not, or know what is not." I'm not sure I follow. You can think about all sorts of things that are imaginary. Invisible unicorns, dragons, geometrical shapes, and so on. Is there a subtle distinction here between the imaginary and the non-existent?

[@thoughtcriminal7198]

Your thoughts imaginary or otherwise are still derived from what in reality is.

[@YashArya01]

@@thoughtcriminal7198 don't follow your reasoning. Are you saying for example that we derive unicorns by combining horses and horns? That we see triangular shapes in reality and then think of triangle as a geometrical object? That reasoning can only go so far. I could draw a fairly random shape on a paper that I'm pretty sure I haven't seen in real life. I also don't see any problem to Objectivist philosophy if we can imagine things that don't exist.

[@Torgomasta]

The imaginary creatures you mentioned all have characteristics of actually real things, for example let’s look at your dragon example. Dragons have scales (something we have perceived in reality), because our minds are familiar with the perceptions of what scales look like, we can imagine a different creature with scales. This is true of all the other percepts of what makes the concept “dragon.” Dr. Peikoff addressed your question when he denies that someone thinking of say-darkness, or empty space-is not actually thinking of nothing, no-thing, but is rather still thinking of some thing that one has knowledge of. Also, consider how our “mythical” creatures are really just combinations of animals, a dragon is just a snake with wings at the end of the day.

[@YashArya01]

@@Torgomasta okay I think I get it. Thanks.

[@Torgomasta]

@@YashArya01 For sure! I myself am stuck on the idea that you can’t traverse a whole distance as mentioned in the video, that’s the one I’m struggling with.

[@threestars2164]

It seems to me the Eleatic conception is caused by a limitation in language. It does not transcend the limitations of its own historical context.

[@luisdawnfinder3188]

22:20 This is basically just Spinal Tap with their amp that goes to 11

[@ExistenceUniversity]

24:56 Plenum Answer

[@Argentina-cz3ru]

By “no change” Parmenides is referring to reality not being compromised of genuinely objective and wholly separate things which have separate substratum’s. what he means is that all is 1 and any appearance of change or separateness is only superficial in appearance.

[@sorcyboi2848]

10:58

[@goldenplayroblox5985]

He sounds like he really hated Heraclitus in a way

[@jameswiblishauser9745]

a show about something?

[@joebuydem]

Lol clever.

[@anastasiya256]

If there is no nothing, then there is no number zero, and there is no empty set, so just throw out all of mathematics. How can Zeno talk about the size of parts being zero when there is no zero? lol

[@johnm.4655]

Welp, looks like Eckhart Tolle wasn't the originator of the idea of the "Power of Now", seems it was Parmenides! Only "now" actually exists. BLOL!

[@MsDomminus]

Let’s see what Advaita Vedanta says. There is only Being. Pure Being can manifest itself to itself as appearances, All the phenomena are appearances, “Appearance” is the root meaning of the word “Phenomenon”. So, the real nature of everything and every being is Being. The multiplicity is just an appearance, that is, the single seems to be multiple. Based on interpretations of what we perceive, we create divisions in life. But interpretations depend on knowledge, which is always incomplete, The senses and reason are limited. All the interpretations about “what is” are incomplete, therefore false. So, division and separativiness are false. Perceiving this, there is quietness, silence, regarding the comprehension of the totality. The Silence is the Truth. Silence is immeasurable. It is unknowable from the point of view of the appearance named "Intellect". Silence is what I am, because Silence is the essence. "Tat Twam Asi" (Thou art That).

[@jacksonstone246]

You began explaining the outside world with yourself and being alive. There are things that existed before you did. To say “everything is being” is simply false. If you don’t see that you have your being in your ass.

[@vascoespañol]

2D changeless, Timeless, limitless reality and 3D holographic universe projection with apparent time, space, mass...and change. Heraclitus lost.

[@benchapple1583]

I have just thought about nothing- successfully. "Hard vacuum" It is nothing by definition and I thought about it.

[@jacksonstone246]

What do you mean by hard vacuum?

[@benchapple1583]

@@jacksonstone246 The normal meaning. A complete absence of matter. E.g. intergalactic space.

[@good4ud]

By labelling it as intergalactic space, you just described 'something', which as you say is defined by its boundary. I do think you may still be right though, because the label simply refers to the concept which is of itself nothing. Similar to zero if you get what I mean

[@watermelonlalala]

There is only Christ and Anti-Christ.