|
Parmenides : Philosophy of Being (1) what is and what is not
philosophy of being what is and what is not (1).hwp
Parmenides is one of the most important philosopher in western philosophy. To understand his philosophical thought is not easy, because no one before him ever thought of the being itself. He topicalized for the first time the problem of being; he is the founder of philosophy of being, i.e. ontology. On this basis Parmenides could set up the possibility of the knowledge, i.e. knowledge as the identity of subject and object: Being is thought. Philosophy as a valid science was firstly proved by him.
Therefore his thought is above all important. Greek philosophy existed before Parmenides, however previous thinker of Greek philosophy were not certain of the possibility of knowledge in the name of philosophy.
The problem of possibility of objective knowledge first occurred in the 5. century B.C, in Greece. The sophists attacked the validity of knowledge, including philosophy. They denied the identity of object and subject, being and thought.
Then hitherto believed knowledge was fundamentally challenged, refuted and ignored by a lot of sophists. They were suspicious of possibility of knowledge, i.e. universal knowledge especially that of moral and value. According to the sophists everyone has his own knowledge i.e. knowledge is relative to the individuals : All looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.
Therefore Socrates seemed to confess that he knew nothing.
Socrates said, “The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing.” although in Plato’s dialogue “Apology” Socrates knew about “nature philosophy” at his time.
Parmenides’ theory of being could defend philosophical, scientific knowledge against the relativism, scepticism and agnosticism about the truth as objective knowledge at that time.
A great sophist, Gorgias, for example, established his nihilistic argument as “trilemma”:
i. Nothing exists
ii. Even if existence exists, it cannot be known
iii. Even if it could be known, it cannot be communicated.
As will be later discussed, the position of Parmenides with regard to being, knowledge and communication is the direct opposition to that of Gorgias. Parmenides says, in opposition to Gorgias, “nothing” is impossible! It is absurd for one to think about nothing! Only “being” or “something” or “that which exist” is meaningful. As will be soon cleared, it is because being does not have negation.
Therefore Plato and Aristotle came to use the argument on being from the standpoint of Parmenides.
Parmenides’ thinking can be therefore sufficiently understood from the perspective of Plato and especially Aristotle.
As opposed to the sophists Plato and Aristotle seeked the possibility of the public, universal knowledge through Parmenides. As a result Aristotle could perform the system of science or philosophy.
However it is not easy to interpret consistently Parmenides’ thought in his writings. Therefore I limit my study on Parmenides to some important phrases of his philosophical poem.
delivered Parmenides’ writing in fractions
Parmenides tried to capture the essence of reality through the analysis of structure of “being” or “what is”. Being or “what is” does not have here any special, determinate meaning but only general meaning of being. In this relation the concept of being refers to the most common notion of being. Parmenides found above all the logical structure of being : Being cannot be denied.
The core of Parmenides’s thought is that being or “what is” can not be denied, negated. Therefore nonbeing or “what is not” is false, impossible. It is absurd for one to think and say about nonbeing, “what is not”.
This is the essence of his argument on being.
And we can think, say and learn only being or “what is”. Therefore being or “what is“ is objective and intelligible. Knowledge of being is valid. From this perspective his thought is quite simple. As will be revealed later on, ”not“ or negation belongs to the subjective part of cognition. Therefore Parmenides was able to assert the truth of being and the fallacy of nonbeing or nothing.
It was the "being" concept of Parmenides that served as the basis for the formation of Plato's Idea(=eidos) theory. On top of that, Aristotles’ philosophy too was founded on the concept of being of Parmenides. This problem I will debate later again.
The science in the West owes Parmenides absolutely, without him no science at all. More closely to say, the possibility of science or scientific recognition was due to the teaching of Parmenides on being.
The basis of western philosophy is ontology or metaphysics. But before Plato and Aristotle, it was Parmenides who laid the foundation of the ontology and metaphysics through the analysis of being.
One of the famous propositions of Parmenides is as follows:
The first, namely, that It is, and that it is impossible for it not to be, is the way of conviction, for truth is its companion. The other, namely, that It is not, and that it must needs not be,—that, I tell thee, is a path that none can learn of at all. For thou cannot know what is not—that is impossible—nor utter it; for it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be. (text of Parmenides)
According to Parmenides, what is is, what is not is not and what is can not exchanged with what is not. It seems to be very natural. Therefore it seems to be tautology, in the form of A=A. However the content of “It is” goes beyond the tautology. In my opinion Aristotle’s law of identity or tautology of A=A stemed from “It is” or “what is is” of Parmenides.
The implication of “It is” is as follows : In the area of “being” or “what is” there is no denying of existence. Denying or negation consists not in things themselves but in the mind; in subjective thinking.
Therefore Parmenides said that “It is not” or “what is not” is mistaken. They cannot be true. There is no denying of being, existence. Negation or denial belongs to the logic as the instrument of human knowledge. Aristotle called his logic as Organon.
In the elementary step of metaphysics and logic, Parmenides could not distinguish between the truth of being and that of logic, especially that of judgment. Later Aristotle could knew the function of affirmation and denial, to solve the difficulty of “what is not is not” by Parmenides. The point is that denial or negation doesn’t be ascribed to the being but to the assertion as a combination of two beings or two things. That is; negation is a kind of subjective function of human mind.
Affirmation and Denial in Aristotle’s De interpretationeIn the De interpretatione (Int.), Aristotle holds that affirmation (κατάφασις) and denial (ἀπόφασις) constitute two different kinds of assertion (ἀπόφανσις) or assertive sentence (λόγος ἀποφαντικός). He conceptualizes the distinction in terms of combination (σύνθεσις) and separation, or division (διαίρεσις). In his view, affirming that Socrates is white, for example, requires combining being white with Socrates, whereas denying that he is white requires separating being white from him. (Springer link. com)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-019-09669-y
From this perspective there is no affimation and negation in the beings or things. This is the secret of Parmenides’s enigmatic philosophical expression: “What is is, what is not is not”. Being of Parmenides refers to “term” in Aristotle’s logic. Thus can we say that negation is not applied to term but to judgment or proposition in Aristotle’s logic.
Therefore verbal expressions as “nothing” or “it is not” or “what is not” is absurd by Parmenides. Affirmation or negation is functions of human mind. Furthermore the function of negation as “not” in a sentence is said to mean separation or division between things. A negative statement e.g. “Socrtes is not a philosopher” separates Socrates from a philosopher.
But the insufficient moment of his thought, i.e. an absence of instrumental, logical consideration caused philosophy to go a long and winding way of persistent sturuggle through Plato and Aristotle.
Negation is as a matter of fact a function of our mind and it occures in the judgment, assertion, proposition. As Aristotle over said, negation lies in the combination of two things. Therefore nonbeing as “what is not” belongs to the realm of assertion or proposition. E.g. a sentence; Socrates is philosopher, is a judgment, a combination of two things, Socrates and philosopher. Therefore No-Socrates or “Socrates doesn’t exist” can have no meaning by Parmenides. Being has no negation but assertion has negation.
In short, Parmenides first of all saw the “being as such” or “being qua being” but he didn’t see the level of human cognition depending on being and language(=assertion). For reasons of his shortage of knowledge, Parmenides embarrassed us with his enigmatic expressions. Although human recognition depends on being or what is, it requires more i.e. language and assertion or formal logic.
# identity of being and thought
Here we should discuss the problem of identity of being and thought or that of object and subject as it was asserted by Parmenides. The identity or unity of being and thought is not a mystic concept, but a simple matter of fact, i.e. that we can understand something: That is when we understand simple mathmatical case 2+2 = 4, the identity of being and thought occures. In other words identity of being and thought means our understanding, cognition, knowledge.
A curious thing about identity of being and thought as knowledge is that it consists only in the realm of universal cognition. Like Parmenides argues, to the realm of the sensible, individual things the identity of being and thought or knowledge does not be applied.
As Hegel says in his “Phenomenology of Spirit”, the truth of “sensible certainty” e.g. “Now is the November 14th” is soon falsified. Therefore the truth or unity of being and thought remains in the universal area. This argument would Parmenides assert when he said that only being can be thought, spoken, and learned. Human knowledge consists only in the level of the universal. Thinking and speaking are valid only in the universal area. In other words both being and knowledge of it are public and intelligible.
Hegel too like other philosophers rejected effectively the possibility of individual, sensible cognition in his master work “Phenomonology of Spirit”
# denial of becoming, change
As the first finder of being qua being Parmenides proceeds to the denial of change and becoming. Change and becoming involves the moment of negation.
For example when a child is born, where was he before his birth? Conversely when a man died, where was he gone?
Being can not come from nonbeing, what is not. And being can not also turn into nonbeing. Therefore change, becoming is impossible in the authentic sense: Birth and death are also impossible, although they are real in the daily life. Hier comes the difference between philosophy and common sense. Because of this difference philosophy is difficult to understand and many people laugh at Parmenides, when he said “what is is uncreated and indestructible”.
One path only is left for us to speak of, namely, that It is. In this path are very many tokens that what is is uncreated and indestructible; for it is complete, immovable, and without end.
Nor was it ever, nor will it be;
for now it is, all at once, a continuous one. For what kind of origin for it wilt thou look for? In what way and from what source could it have drawn its increase? I shall not let thee say nor think that it came from what is not; for it can neither be thought nor uttered that anything is not. (text of Parmenides)
According to the previous argument of Parmenides being or what is is. Nonbeing or what is not is impossible. This point is to be accepted. Being doesn’t contain negation or “not”, there is no denying of being. With help of Aristotle we can come to ascribe negation or simple “not” to the assertion, sentence.
This argument of Parmenides can we define as the general structure of being : Being has no negation.
On the basis of hitherto discussed Parmenides goes a step more : There is no becoming, birth, growth and death. They are all illusion of sensation. There are no creation, destruction at all. The world of birth, generation, decaying, vanishing is due to the stupidity of human spirit. As will be next mentioned, Buddhism coincides with denial of sensory world. Like Buddhism, Parmenides also regarded this world of change and becoming as imagination and fantasy; phenomenon.
The world of change, withering and vanishing invokes the emotion of vanity, meaninglessness. Nevertheless, being of Parmenides is not as God conceived. On the contrary his being seems
to be rather material.
Parmenides denies coming into being as well as coming into nonbeing. These are contradictory to the nature of being. Being is declared as forever, eternal. Closely said, being is timeless. However Parmenides goes over the timeless being as the logical structure of being to substantiate being i.e. he makes one being from the general structure of being : Being is like a sphere.
Since, then, it has a furthest limit, it is complete on every side, like the mass of a rounded sphere, equally poised from the centre in every direction
The thought of being as the mass of a rounded sphere collides with the being as being or what is. From this point of view is Parmenides’ system of being somewhat inconsistent and deficient.
To see the text file, cf.
|