1

Dr. Elly Pirocacos

Aristotle

An Outline of Parmenides’ Poem

Parmenides proposes two main challenges (according to some, only one; according to others, two; and according to yet others, two which involve related problems): 1) particulars/universals—what does it mean to be some-one-thing (hence questions of knowledge, language and metaphysics are raised) and 2) monism—what-is can not partake in what is-not (in any way whatsoever), hence change (this was a basic challenge for Aristotle) generation/destruction, and division are all impossible.

Parmenides’s work—written in the form of poem—is divided into 3 basic parts:

A) proem (preface to the poem)

B) the Way of Truth (Alitheia)

i) what is (esti)—the way of truth and Persuasion.

ii) what is-not (ouk esti)—the impossible track.

iii) what is and what is-not (esti and ouk esti)—the way of Mortal opinion and contradiction.

C) the Way of Mortal Opinion (Doxa)

Today we have most of A) and B). Indeed interpretations of C) often rely on interpretations of A) and B).

A. The Proem

It is here that the stage is set for what is to follow. In other words, the interpretation we provide for the remainder of the poem must be consistent with the sign posting found in the proem. Here we find that 1) the world of sense perception is left behind, and a priori (prior to experience) reasoning is recommended in its place. 2) a dialectic relationship transposes between the Goddess, Parmenides and his readers. 3) a Goddess presumably guides Parmenides on his journey to Truth. 4) it is recommended by the Goddess that we should learn both the well-rounded truth and the opinions of mortals which can not be trusted.

1. On the Significance of A Priori Reasoning

We are basically informed that the Way of Truth is going to be travelled via a priori reasoning which means that we can not appeal to experience in any way to confirm our beliefs. It would appear that Parmenides is, in effect, asking us to suspend conviction in all of our existing beliefs (presumably we take them to also be true) and induce a kind of scepticism. This sounds somewhat like the Cartesian method of doubt and it is similar in objective also. Like Descartes, Parmenides seems to want us to challenge our existing beliefs, not so much because he believes them to be false but because he wants to reconstruct these on the basis of a soundfoundation. We should be on the look out, then, for arguments that will foster this sound foundation as well as a positive construction of all subsequent beliefs on the basis of it.

2. On the Significance of the Dialectic Relationship

This is important because from the very outset it presupposes plurality. That means that Parmenides could not in all honesty be expected to be looking to defend monism. It is one thing to end up in monism, and it is quite anther to present arguments to defend monism. If he gets stuck in monism, as he does, then either this happens because he did not know how to resolve the problem(s) that incited this unacceptable conclusion, or he did know how to resolve it but wanted the reader to discover it on his own, hence the enlightenment that is expected to follow on our journey with Parmenides. Beware of Parmenides´ reference to Persuasion in the proem. It is clear that persuasion is not understood in the purely psychological sense, and that it must be coupled by soundness of argument or truth. It means that he is appealing to an attentive listener that is rational in mind (remember this is an a priori exercise so from the outset it is clear that only rational beings can follow). It must therefore be what is called dialectical. There must be conviction fostered on the basis of valid and sound reasoning.

3. On the Significance of the Goddess as Spokesperson of Truth

The Goddess is female which suggests fertility, birth. She is an authoritative figure, and she is accompanying Parmenides and his readers on their joint journey to enlightenment. From the reference to persuasion previously, it is clear that enlightenment is something that does not occur simply on the basis of lecturing which would be the form typical of treaties. Instead it requires getting the reader psychologically involved in the argument. This would seem to suggest that the conclusions of the arguments as well as the premises must somehow be offensive (remember they would endorse monism and so our inexistence). This in turn would be something that a rational being would challenge by attempting to rebuke the problematic premises or conclusion via an analysis of the presented arguments. Perhaps this is why both the way of Truth and the way of mortals—presumably true and contradictory respectively—must both be developed. Careful the Wayof Truth, is a method for attaining truth, it is not also the case that what gets said there is also going to be true. The difference in the method is in the manner by which truth (beliefs which are taken as true) is arrived at.

4. On the Significance of Learning both Truth and Falsehood

Point (3) above obviously has implications for the so-called learning of truth and falsehood. Remember the Goddess says that we must learn both. Again emphasis must be given to the method which either route recommend and less what each proposes is true (that the Way of Truth gets stuck in monism means that there is nothing that truth is of, this would imply that something has gone wrong in the argument leading up to the conclusion. The content, or lack of content, in this case is important only as an implication of the conclusion’s falsehood).

B. The Way of Truth

Frs. 2 & 6 are vitally important as it is in these fragments that the premises that will render monism are set. Some have argued that a disjunctive argument is presented in this way. That means that it has the following form: either A or B or C; not-B; not-C= A where A is esti, B is ouk esti and C is esti and ouk esti. Check the argument to see whether this is what Parmenides does. Does he, in other words, try to prove that A is true by first proving that B is false, and then proving that C is false. Also, does the proem and the rest of poem suggest that Parmenides is providing a defence of monism, namely that he believes that A is true?

It is true that Parmenides begins by saying that ouk esti is an impossible track because ouk esti is not there to be thought of, or to be spoken of. That suggests that thought must be full, in other words, it must be of some-thing. The question which remains is whether this some-thing is also existent. That it is something that you would come across in the world, or whether it just has to be some-thing identifiable for thought. The first view would endorse a correspondence theory of truth, the latter not. We are not required in what has been said so far to believe the first since we have already from the outset said that we would suspend all beliefs, this would include that there is a world, and things in it. It is possible that I, a contemplative mind, am all there is, and that the objects of my thought are only for my mind. This is known as solipsism. You must figure this out for yourselves. Think about the dialectical context of the poem, not just in terms of truth itself, but in terms of there being a plurality of things to begin with and the assumption that there is something beyond my mind with whom I am now conversing as it were. Following from this, namely the impossibility of ouk esti, Parmenides then evokes the contradictoriness of thinking esti and ouk esti simultaneously. This is because each of these phrases is taken individually so that ouk esti is a non-entity, there is no thing, either in the world or in my mind, that it denotes. Consequently, to confer both would involve saying that “something is what is not”.

I should also remind you (see Curd) that there are three different kinds of monism (they are compatible):

3.Existential monism is the view that there is only one existing thing in the world.

4.Material monism is the view that there is only one kind of matter in the world (e.g. Thales).

5.Predicative monism is the view that there is only predicate term that can be assigned to any one thing.

Also there are four readings of the verb “to be”:

4. Identity; e.g. Elly is (the same as) Dr. Pirocacos.

5. Predicative; e.g. The table is brown.

6. Veridical; e.g. It is true that the table is brown.

7. Existential; e.g. Is John alive. Yes, he is.

Useful readings include (these are quite basic and understandable; there are other readings that are considered to be classics but these are a bit too advanced for our purpose):

5.“Parmenides from Elea”, in Philosophy Before Socrates by R.D. McKirihan.

6.“The Thesis of Parmenides”, The Review of Metaphysics, 22 (1969), by C.H. Kahn.

7.“Parmenides’ Dilemma”, by M.M. Mackenzie.

8.“Parmenidean Monism”, Phronesis, 1991, by P.K. Curd.

9.“Parmenides: Rationalism Falls Short of Truth”, Philosophical Inquiry, 1997, by E. Pirocacos.

Useful Internet Cite:

*please be careful of information obtained from the Internet, especially when the information is posted by a non-expert. It is best (“safer”) to search for university based source (edu. and ac.).

Attached are: fragments of Parmenides’ work (frs. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8). The translation is R.D. McKirihan’s, which can be found in his book Philosophy Before Socrates: An Introduction with Texts and Commentary, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994.