books pdf ΠαρμενίδηςAuthor Plato – Sharkmotorcyclehelmets.co.uk

This Is An English Translation Of One Of The Challenging And Enigmatic Of Plato S Dialogues Between Socrates And Parmenides And Zeno Of Elea, That Begins With Zeno Defending His Treatise Of Parmenidean Monism Against Those Partisans Of PluralityFocus Philosophical Library Translations Are Close To And Are Non Interpretative Of The Original Text, With The Notes And A Glossary Intending To Provide The Reader With Some Sense Of The Terms And The Concepts As They Were Understood By Plato S Immediate Audience


10 thoughts on “Παρμενίδης

  1. says:

    I am interested to discover that the doctrine of the One is still alive It is now going by the name of blobjectivism, and is being met with the usual uninformed derision Only fifteen minutes ago, Matt cruelly dismissed it in the following terms I opened the link and closed it right away I mostly saw Is this blobjectivism Ah, Matt, if only Parmenides of Elea were still with us He d put you in your place and tell you that all you need to do is switch the coding to Windows 1252 You can find his sage advice near the end of the famous dialogue with Aristoteles no relation , but for some reason very few people read that far.


  2. says:

    In part, this dialogue was simply too hard for me I find I quickly get lost with many philosophical arguments Sartre does this to me too, which is annoying, because other things he writes make complete sense to me This one is again one of those dialogues that is reported from a long time before much like The Symposium but this one goes right back to when Socrates was a very young man It challenges many of the assumptions associated with Plato s view of the nature of his forms and so, given Socrates went on to continue to support his view on these forms, I assume Socrates wasn t ultimately convinced by the arguments Parmenides gives even if he seems to accept them in this dialogue My understanding of all this is that Socrates believes that the world we live in is basically unreal that is, because it changes, and change invariably involves a contradiction things are and are not at the same time and because the true cannot involve a contradiction, then the world we live in can t be the really real world That real world would be without contradiction and it would therefore be composed of perfect that is, unchanging forms The problem is just what would those forms be Would there be, for instance, only perfect forms for abstract concepts, like beauty, truth, honour, justice, knowledge Or would there also be perfect forms for objects in the world the prefect table, chair, and so on And what about measures, like big or small And so it goes Much of this dialogue involves discussions showing that even in the abstract world of the world of forms, the paradoxes involved in thinking about things don t go away Things can be both smaller and bigger when compared to different things I m bigger than a cat, smaller than an elephant and so is the form of smaller and the form of bigger put into a kind of contradiction here The point being, I think, that if the escape to the world of forms was to get away from paradoxes and contradictions, then Parmenides is saying that it isn t much of an escape route In the Theaetetus, a dialogue that consciously places itself right before the trial of Socrates and therefore right at the end of his life so that that dialogue and this one bookend Socrates life the discussion is also on Parmenides and in that dialogue Socrates also mentions that as a young man he spoke with Parmenides and respected his views This is complex, since it isn t at all clear how Socrates can resolve the problems Parmenides is presenting him on his own world view based in part on the real existence of these forms He seems to be trapped.Hegel is perhaps a solution here that is, to think of the world as being about change and to see change as necessary in its movement that is, rather than being afraid of the paradoxes and contradictions that are inevitably a part of accepting that things are in motion, to accept this as the essence of becoming and therefore the truth of our world Something impossible, of course, for either Socrates or Parmenides to believe.Like I said at the very beginning, I didn t really understand all that much of this one I suspect I would need to sit with it and perhaps a commentary, and a pencil, and maybe a philosopher too to really follow it all But, onward and upward


  3. says:

    .


  4. says:

    Parmenides is the most intriguing of plato s dialogues I like this dialogue for a couple of reasons.Firstly, the usual roles are reversed Socrates here is a young and inexperienced lad and he is the one to be cross examined Secondly it features Parmenides, whose metaphysics is very interesting First part of the dialogue deals with the internal inconsistencies and the incompleteness of the theory of forms Here Plato criticises his own theory through Parmenides by reductio ad absurdum arguments He deals with the problems that arise with the properties like Self predication and uniqueness of forms.Reminded me of the paradox that comes with a set of all sets that are not members of themselves.In the second part, Parmenides decides to defend the forms through some convoluted reasoning and starting with the hypothesis,If it is one if one is.But no consensus is reached at the end regarding the one I can only assume that this dialogue was intended as an epistemological and metaphysical work to challenge our basic assumptions of knowledge.Or probably as a dialogue to make us better understand the forms, by showing the properties like uniqueness, purity and self predication to be false.


  5. says:

    Ex nihilo, nihil fit.


  6. says:

    I think there are three ways to see The One The ultimate Good and the source of all reality, our consciousness for when we think, and literally the number 1 , each are different ways for how we understand the nature of existence being We think about being either by our understanding, our experience, our ideas, our contemplation or our lack of contemplation Heidegger, e.g Each is equally valid in its on way I ve recently read Hegel s Phenomenology and that led me to his Science of Logic and that led me to this book Hegel borrows heavily from this book Hegel puts in his movement dialectic but he mostly insists that we need to understand the painting as the whole before we can understand the pieces of the painting just as Parmenides would say actually as Parmenides does say in this dialog It is almost as if this book doesn t belong in the works of Plato s Socratic dialogs So much really shouts out against what Socrates says elsewhere in Plato s dialogs The forms from our ideas fall under assault by Parmenides Opposites don t exist proof by contradiction are used without mercy against much of what Socrates held to be true Socrates needs the absolute in order to defeat the sophisticated Sophists and therefore needs a starting point in order to get his negation all determinations are negations , but he doesn t have it Our being and becoming, the void and matter, motion and stillness, existence and nothing all need an absolute negation and Parmenides takes that away in this incredibly clever dialog Kant has to have his intuition categories in order to get the universal Parmenides gives only the one Heidegger will start with Being dasein, understanding ones own understanding about ones understanding and builds a complicated world structure always in threes past, present, and future and ends in Temporarlity as if he wished to have started with time instead What is the proper ontological foundation Being or time Parmenides will put The One outside of time temporally just as the God of an Evangelical will most often be and in my opinion Spinoza does the same but many if not most readers of Spinoza seem to disagree.This is an incredibly important little book which seems to relate to most of the books I ve recently have been reading and I wish I had read it before reading some of the others I ve recently read Hegel, Heidegger, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Gadamer, and Sartre It s not a hard to follow book and I actually re listened to parts of it to make sure I was understanding it correctly.


  7. says:

    I read this dialogue and was exhausted by its repetitive and confusing arguments Only now that I ve had time to step away from it and discuss it with others has the true beauty of The Parmenides message struck me This book allowed me to see everything as unified in a way I could never conceive of before Everything humans, love, mud, table, and injustice are one It is only because of this connection that we can afford to think of ourselves as separate entities I can call myself I in a conversation because I know that in our interaction we exist as a whole we that gives us common ground to understand one another For some reason, I really love this idea that all people and things are connected, whether we acknowledge it or not.


  8. says:

    Extremely important dialogue In some ways I think Plato is best understood as a response to Parmenides and Heraclitus However, even having read Parmenides fragments and listening to some lectures on this dialogue, I still must confess that the second half was much too obscure for me to comprehend well hence I hope to listen to some lectures and perhaps read some secondary literature on this profoundly impactful thinker.It was also nice to see Socrates get owned for once.


  9. says:

    Maybe I should have just stuck with Green Eggs and Ham I m not really qualified to rate the book, and I didn t try to struggle through many of the logic puzzles, though the Parmenides seems to be as much about ontology and to some extent language or at least the verb to be as it is about valid argument And as is characteristic with Plato, it s about considerably , famously presenting serious and unresolved challenges to his Theory of Forms part epistemology, part ontology, part everything else after which it goes through a series of mazes about the One and the Many Fun, fun, fun Mary Louise Gill s introduction is very good, but I have the nagging sense that she misses something I sometimes wonder what Plato would have thought of Aristotle s formal logic certainly a great advance, and the Parmenides may be its most important forerunner, but Plato is almost Aristotle s opposite in that he systematically avoids systematizing anything In spite of his having a mathematical mind than Aristotle, Plato seems so close to developing a formal logic here but refuses to do so Maybe he s unable to or just didn t get there But I tend to think he s uninclined and not oriented towards formalizing logic as Aristotle does Plato was also of a mystic than Aristotle, which I think has some relevance to this question.In Aristotle s defense, his logic can be seen as serving his metaphysical vision about the essential comprehensibility of the cosmos, with man and his rationality being a product of that cosmos, and with man having an essential desire to understand, as he says at the beginning of his Metaphysics Aristotle s formal logic is both a means for investigating the comprehensible cosmos and a demonstration of the rationality of the cosmos Whether he s correct and whether or to what extent his logic succeeds are open questions It seems Plato would have largely agreed with Aristotle s metaphysical vision, at least as I ve described it, but I suspect he might have considered Aristotle s logic too reductive and exclusive Our strengths are often also our weaknesses One of Aristotle s strengths is that he frequently doesn t try to completely prove his point to the exclusion of all alternatives, but instead presents a case so compelling he thinks that he believes it will be thoroughly convincing, leaving alternatives to fend for themselves Plato, on the other hand, sometimes tries to be comprehensive, but in those situations he s typically too wise to try to be definitive using rational argument, relying on myth or analogy, or on the ambiguity that s possible in the dialogue form, or leaving arguments incomplete or very likely knowing they have unresolved flaws Parmenides is the outstanding example of this, regarding the Theory of Forms I don t think Plato abandoned the theory as some have thought it seems he honestly investigated it, exposed and analyzed difficulties, left problems open that he couldn t solve, but continued holding to it I believe his later works pretty strongly imply this I suspect Plato would have been uncomfortable with an exclusive, definitive formal logic It might not be possible for man to develop a perfect system of logic, and it seems to imply an unreal separation of the rational from other parts of the soul as both Plato and Aristotle in general conceived the soul And if this is unreal for the soul, it s unreal for the cosmos as Aristotle has the two intimately related and corresponding to one another Can a statement about something that s supposed to exist be dealt with properly using rationality alone Can rationality alone ensure that a statement is valid, much less cogent Are unqualified conclusions about validity and cogency legitimate Is it appropriate and ultimately is it truly meaningful to isolate statements the way Aristotle does in his syllogisms Do they accurately represent anything that exists Formal logic is linear, pure, exact, reducible to very simple components, at times purportedly incontrovertible in its conclusions Does this correspond with the human soul or the cosmos as they really are Another possible problem is that Aristotle s logic seems to operate contrary to Plato s apparent conception of philosophy as necessarily and essentially dialectical a search for truth involving two or souls in an active relationship Whether this is a definite or complete doctrine of Plato s is questionable at a minimum he surely would have also included isolated individual contemplation And though he clearly considers active dialectic to be very important, the late works seem to move away from this position Also, isn t Aristotle s metaphysical vision most fundamentally about an active and intimate relationship between man and the cosmos I could be completely wrong suspecting Plato would have had serious reservations about Aristotle s logic, though I can t help thinking he would have at least sought to qualify it Of course we ll never hear Plato and Aristotle discuss the Parmenides and Aristotle s logic, but wouldn t it be fascinating Okay, maybe not for everybody.