Parmenides Argument For All Things Being Continuously One Philosophy Essay

Parmenides Argument For All Things Being Continuously One Philosophy Essay Describe and assess Parmenides argument for all things being continuously one. Parmenides argument for things being continuously one begins with the ways of inquiry into the reality of the world. He shows there to be the Way of truth and the Way of opinion. His criticism in his poem entitled On Nature is that the true nature of the reality of the world cannot be known by the way of opinion. The Way of opinion being the perception of the world as one would see it, not the reality of the world as these observations or perceptions only give truth to the appearance of the world. Appearance can be illusory. The way of truth on the other hand gives the follower of this route a true idea of the reality of the world as it is based on logical deduction and it is from this that Parmenides reasons that all things are continuously one. In On Nature Parmenides presents the possible way of truth in two ways with which one could deduce the world, one way being the way of it is the other being it is not. It in these propostions can be thought of as anything one is thinking about, the is to be thought of as exist. Accepting that is means exist Parmenides comes to the conclusion that thinking it is not is impossible. His argument is as follows. Anything that one can think of is something that can exist For something to be it is not cannot exist (something cannot be nothing) Therefore if thinking about something that cannot exist is impossible, one cannot think about something that is nothing (that is not) Armed with this conclusion, Parmenides then follows the way of truth that he has presented. In the world there is only it is as it is not is impossible and to think of the latter is impossible. To just empirically observe the world is not to know the reality of the world, such empirical observations would have you believe that the world is in constant motion; going through the constant changes of generation and destruction as a result of such movement. An example being Heraclitus statement that one cannot step into the same river twice as the waters are constantly moving and changing. In order these changes happen there must be space in the world in which all this movement can take place. This space; to be thought of as nothing or nothingness, is impossible by following the route of the way of truth. Thinking of nothing is thinking it is not and therefore impossible. There is no nothing, or what Democritus and Leucippus named a void, in which movement is possible. Without a void, Par menides states that everything must be unchanging. Heraclitus example of the river is to Parmenides the way of opinion; the appearance of the world but not the reality or truth. Generation and destruction also require nothing, generation; that something comes from nothing and destruction; that something will turn into nothing. Both are impossible to Parmenides and what he concludes from the impossibility of nothing is that all that what is is eternal. As well as eternal the world must be infinitely continuous as if it did end at some point then what would be beyond that point? Parmenides cant say nothing. Continuous with no spaces of nothingness the world is, in Parmenides own words from On Nature, full of what is. Let us look at Parmenides argument that concludes that thinking of something that is not is impossible. The first premise that anything we think about can exist seems valid. How would it seem possible to think of something that doesnt exist? Hume named thoughts ideas and reasoned that all ideas can be broken down to simple ideas built up in different ways, where these ideas came from was an impression of something perceived in the world. For example the idea of a blue horse is the amalgamation of the impressions of the colour blue and the animal named a horse. What about imaginative thoughts though? Imagine magic, the Harry Potter books are testament to the human imagination but magic doesnt exist. Hume would defend his argument by saying magic was the amalgamation of more simple ideas and mixed into something not possible, but Parmenides argument seems not allow for one to think of magic, but by typing these words or reading or them one has already thought of it. Also in this premis e how does Parmenides justify the existence of anything? To justify any existence would be to justify through the way of opinion, but he has said himself in On Nature that this is not the route to seek truth, in order seek truth one must follow the course started by the first premise in question. It seems almost contradictory of Parmenides to justify the way of truth by the way of opinion when the way of truth is taken by Parmenides to know the reality of the world as oppose to just the appearance granted by the way of opinion. The second premise, something cannot be nothing, seems sound, something indeed cannot be nothing. But let us in assessment accept the argument that Parmenides gives for the impossibility of it is not and see what we can make of this interpretation of nothing. Having accepted this must we accept the following conclusions that run from this argument, in entirety that the universe/world is continuously one? Accepting the conclusions depends upon the role played by nothing. Here in Parmenides argument the interpretation of nothing would be that nothingness is the necessary ingredient of change; the other being movement. Movement would be impossible if there was no place to move and a place to move must be unoccupied place; that being nothing. Does movement require nothing? Could there not be another form of vacantness that isnt necessarily nothing but allows movement? Aristotle replaces nothingness with space, space being a receptacle in which objects are placed in. By doing this Aristot le could be seen as accepting the argument of Parmenides that there is no nothing but not accepting what follows logically for Parmenides that everything is continuously one. Aristotles space is part of Parmenides what is and allows for the movement and all that follows it to happen; allowing Heraclitus to step in different rivers forever. Parmenides conclusion that there is no movement, no change, no destruction, no generation etc. almost seems counter intuitive. It seems that in the world there is movement and change. Parmenides said that his insight is an insight derived through logic; his central tenant being the impossibility of nothing, due to the contradiction pointed out that for nothing to exist; something would have to be nothing. But do his conclusions that the world is without start or end, and that it is infinite ask a few questions of logic themselves? If something never started how then can it exist? Everything it seems requires a start. The infinite has it self some strange paradoxes, one in mathematics being that there are as many even numbers in infinite as there are combined even and odd numbers; an infinite amount. Parmenides begins On Nature attempting to know the world without nothing something that he sees as illogical. Discarding nothing his logical conclusion leaves him with a set of descriptio ns of the world that seem slightly illogical in themselves.