The Origin of Thinking 2: Parmenides on Being

[@morphixnm]

This was an excellent decoding. First of what Parmenides could not have meant about some universal absence of motion and change, and then which meanings of being best disambiguate things so that the entire account is coherent and indicative as to the kind of illusion and shallow thinking mortals fall into. Thank you for taking these steps to unravel Parmenides which, in my experience, others have walked right past.

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

Thank you very much indeed

[@TheYellowshuttle]

People who have studied Advaita philosophy will find it easy to understand Parmenides. In Advaita too (literal: Non-dual), the ultimate reality doesn't change, doesn't move, has no attributes, has always been etc. Yet, when it's taught, the teacher is apparently contradicting this truth because he is talking, moving etc. Advaita says, there are levels of reality - transactional & absolute (there is 1 more). The changelessness is true from absolute standpoint, and the changing world is true from the relative. Here is an example: In a dream you see many objects and move around great distances. Inside this dream the variety & change is true. But from the absolute standpoint of the dreamer, nothing has moved at all. All object are one (dreamer's mind) and the change & motion has not actually happened but only felt that way by the dreamer's mind. To roughly compare: Doxa=Transactional reality Alethia=Absolute reality

[@stoyanfurdzhev]

The invisible, in the sense that Nature loves to hide, according to Heraclitus' penetrating way of thinking, which I regard in this instance as way more pervasive than the famous affirmation about the uninterrupted flow; and not the absent, as opposition to being in the way by which Aristotle paraphrases Parmenides' original pair of opposite terms, seems to me a more budding interpretation, given Plato's objections to Parmenides' strict monism.

[@peterclaassen8139]

It is interesting that Proclus in his commentary on Plato's Parmenides dialogue specifically states that Parmenides is misunderstood precisely because Parmenides took the highest possible position that one can take, namely the standpoint of unity, or what Heidegger would call being. Having taken this standpoint those who exist within the world of illusion can do nothing but misunderstand. The logic then serves to break us out of the world of illusion and intiate us.

[@stoyanfurdzhev]

Really?

[@thomasguerry7366]

Excellent ideas. The text of Parmenides “On Nature” does not speak to ‘no motion’. Many Academics completely miss the point. Well done!

[@utm0st]

Wonderful video! Been watching a lot of Parmenides videos, the oldest philosophers often feel like the most interesting to me

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

The boi thank you!

[@82472tclt]

This is absolutely gorgeous! Thank you

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

guy sengstock Thank you very much!

[@raycosmic9019]

To think is to 'be' That which is, that thinks. Since that which is not, is not; That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential) = All-inclusive (Absolute). 0. Potential = Being 1. Actual = Becoming (actualized) Eternally actualizing Infinite potential, because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity. Reality = That which is/That I am.

[@frictionhitch]

I don't think that's what he's trying to say at all. I think what he is trying to say is best understood in Plato's dialogue when an old Parmenides slightly Smiles at a young Socrates and advises him on how to become a philosopher. I think that Parmenides primary goal was teaching people how to think. He was challenging current logic itself. Do you truly believe that he was being literal about going up to the heavens? If he was not being a prophetic witness about that then perhaps his entire philosophy is allegorical to logic itself. Perhaps he found heraclitus so ridiculous that's the best way to argue against it was through parody. What a success he was. No one could argue that the problems professed by him did not lead directly to the axioms and the creation of logic. He was the great agitator. He was clearly too intelligent to be speaking in riddles and fairy tales as was heraclitus. These literally were the fathers of logic and like good Fathers they didn't provide answers they provided problems.