Being and not being as entirely connected ONE, incomplete in its series but totally perfect in its structural form of "everlasting being", with "justice, necessity, and fate" as mediating forces of an overarching harmony principle guaranteeing the rebirth of "being" from its ashes, being transformed from a "non-LIVING being", it being alive all along, to a "LIVING BEING" itself!
Really dig this story. Something comes from nothing in literary form - nothing is a word - something created from nothing - 1 thing created from no thing. Nothing is merely a place to put a thing; you can't put water in a full glass. It's a literal-metaphor. A contradiction.
I find this concept of _infinity_ in ancient greek philosophy very intriguing. Especially in contrast to later christian philosophy as foundation to our own interpretation of "infinity". Being infinite is often regarded as a form of _completeness, all encompassing_ or _divine_ characteristic. From the old greeks it's all the way around some how. How about that for logic? Obviously something has to be incomplete, *not complete* if its regarded as unfinished. At last I understand why the base form of verbs is called "infinitiv" in swedish from this video. Supposing it has to do with the greek concept of infinity being incomplete? *Not complete* from the christian understanding of infinites?
Maybe the most accurate appropriate English translation would be 'without end'? Certainly, that would apply to the infinitive verb forms in Latin and Greek :)
It's funny, from a logical perspective _unending_ or _without end_ can mean both absolute completeness or incompleteness simultaneously. Taken it's all about qualitative properties. Not quantitative existence. Another video with Gregory Sadler talks about language not being very effective distinguishing between qualitative inherit properties and quantitative ontology. With a logician called A. J. Ayer. In philosophy I believe this might constitute some earlier mistakes from ancient essentialists and later rationalists.
I like this lecture! You noticed what I have noticed about the implication that there is something above Being necessitating Being to be Being and not non-Being. But you differ in your conclusion as to this apparent paradox. You say that this logical Necessity is an aspect of Being that possesses self-control or self-restraint. Contrarily I think Parmenides does not mean this necessity to be a part of Being, but rather something transcendent that necessitates Being to be and Nonbeing to not be. Logic-Necessity is meta-metaphysical in that it “creates” Being and non-Being by defining them with logical necessity. “Create” is not an accurate term so he uses terms like “necessity or fate holding things together with its chains”. Because metaphorical language is forgivable when not strictly logically accurate when taken literally. What do you think sir? Is Parmenides trying to transcend metaphysics by being Meta-metaphysical?
Bertrand Russell speaks of Ancient Greeks believing in a super-Olympian necessity that is all powerful that even Zeus is subject to the fates decreed for him. That the gods are subject to Fate basically in their stories just like mortals
I am supposed to a collage from the poem 'three oddest words' and I find the paradoxes presented in the poem hard to imagine. Do you have any suggestions on how to portray these as I find it impossible to create a form for 'nothing' or 'non-being'?
When Parmenides talks about "what is", could it be interpreted as: all things that are and can be thought about "is what is", rather than each thing on it's own being what that one thing is? "This apple is what this apple is" vs "This apple is, what is" and If I eat half the apple, "the apple is what the apple is, it's no different from the apple I perceived as "was", it just is" vs. "the apple, whether half being eaten or not, is 'what is' - the apple has both changed and moved, but 'what is' has not and can not" As for sensory illusions, the only illusion truly needed to take in account would be time itself, if one accepts time as an illusion. Both "what is" as an entity on it's own and whatever is going in within "what is" - would then be static, eternal, unchanging. The human consciousness would be incomprehensible, but maybe best described as "lecta", as in the divine equivalent of the meaning behind words in a divine book - unchanging, static and eternal - yet meaningful and brought to life by having been written, read and thought of in a divine plane which can not be thought of or spoken of - this would simply serve as the closest possible analogy I can think of.
@@GregoryBSadler My bad, I thought this was a place for discussion, not for learning how to read. The reading I have done already, several interpretations as well as a variation of translations from the original poem/fragments. The answer to the questions/ideas I commented does not have a clear answer, I was interested in your thoughts and your interpretation. I understand now this was a naive request to make from someone who prefers to stick with "the text"......
@@narcopolo4464 Nah. It was naive for you to think that with as much work as I do and as many people as I engage with, some random person is entitled to "discussion" along whatever lines they like. If you'd like to book my time for a discussion, you can head over to my tutorials page. First openings I have are in early October
@@GregoryBSadler You are of course absolutely right. It takes some time getting used to content of this quality in this environment not coming from someone whose main priority is running a UA-cam channel. I do apologize for my tone, I realize you sharing this content is something you do on top of your main priorities which surely are time-consuming enough on their own. It's admirable and I really appreciate your videos. Thank you for the time you are putting into it, and for replying to my naive comments.
That is a very gracious and thoughtful response, for which I thank you. That's not the sort of thing I typically get here in UA-cam. I'm moved to do something in this case. Clearly you've put a good bit of thought and research into the interpretation you've developed. I'm going to offer to meet for a free tutorial session to discuss it and look at the text together. Send me a line at greg at reasonio dot com, and we can get it set up. The only snag is that it will have to be next month. At this point, I'm pretty slammed, and making appointments only several weeks in advance.
Do you think Parmenides' monism is epistemological, ontological or both? Did he believe that there is literally one ontological 'is,' or does he mean there is only one way of thinking about the universe?
Parmenides said - Being is "like" a well rounded sphere. That doesn't mean Being is spherical or has some sort of shape - No! When we say "John is like a Lion", we don't mean John "is" a Lion. Comparison to a well rounded sphere is made to show that - as the mass of a perfect sphere is same everywhere, from whatever point you measure - not less, not more anywhere, similarly Being is like this mass of sphere - all pervasive, same everywhere, without distinction. Its an analogy. I am surprised that many people, including some academic scholars, think that Parmenides thought of Being as some sort of sphere. In Plato's Parmenides, it's clearly mentioned that Being "cannot" be a sphere (or any other shape), because a sphere has a centre, which is one single point while the surface has many points making contact with many different places "outside". This doesn't satisfy the definition of Being (having no parts, no begining, middle or end), hence it cannot be spherical. Infact, Being is not objective at all such that it could be imagined in some "form". It is formless. Like mass/weight of the sphere doesn't have a form but can only be experienced when you hold it, similarly Being can only be experienced - it cannot be imagined in any form. It is formless and non-objective, yet it "IS".
So Shakespeare was wrong to think that non-being was also an option as he (via Hamlet's famous soliloquy) questions whether to be or not to be. All this of course according to Parmenides.
Invested Patreon Sponsors of this channel who value Dr. Sadler's output and care to donate by a monthly subscription will benefit from this lecture shortcut, an in video hyperlink ... 0:48
Interesting that Parmenides conceives that things expressed in reality or necessity have existence in myths or mythology. Has Parmenides an early conception of alienated self too in the ruminations of non being?
Hi, Parmenides is just saying about you! When you don't know yourself then you will not know Parmenides's. Parmenides Zeno and Socrates are saying about only the same one I of people. When you say to students your philosophies what is the saying I of you in your body? Are there any another different I except your self I in any other universe? I of yourself is always the only one same identical I, isn't it? I of each people is the never be born, the never die, which is Parmenides' Being. Without people's I Being, there can't be anything! I is the same, Moses' I am that I am, people's I is the so called God I, no difference. I is the beginning's words in Gospel John's, which is Jesus' I, also I of each people. Here this suggest to see Thomas Gospel 77, Have nice day.
The first philosopher that blew my mind
Being and not being as entirely connected ONE, incomplete in its series but totally perfect in its structural form of "everlasting being", with "justice, necessity, and fate" as mediating forces of an overarching harmony principle guaranteeing the rebirth of "being" from its ashes, being transformed from a "non-LIVING being", it being alive all along, to a "LIVING BEING" itself!
I think you're reading a lot into Parmenides that just isn't in the text as we have it
Really dig this story. Something comes from nothing in literary form - nothing is a word - something created from nothing - 1 thing created from no thing. Nothing is merely a place to put a thing; you can't put water in a full glass. It's a literal-metaphor. A contradiction.
The bit about infinity was very interesting.
Glad you enjoyed it
I find this concept of _infinity_ in ancient greek philosophy very intriguing. Especially in contrast to later christian philosophy as foundation to our own interpretation of "infinity". Being infinite is often regarded as a form of _completeness, all encompassing_ or _divine_ characteristic. From the old greeks it's all the way around some how. How about that for logic? Obviously something has to be incomplete, *not complete* if its regarded as unfinished.
At last I understand why the base form of verbs is called "infinitiv" in swedish from this video. Supposing it has to do with the greek concept of infinity being incomplete? *Not complete* from the christian understanding of infinites?
Maybe the most accurate appropriate English translation would be 'without end'? Certainly, that would apply to the infinitive verb forms in Latin and Greek :)
It's funny, from a logical perspective _unending_ or _without end_ can mean both absolute completeness or incompleteness simultaneously. Taken it's all about qualitative properties. Not quantitative existence.
Another video with Gregory Sadler talks about language not being very effective distinguishing between qualitative inherit properties and quantitative ontology. With a logician called A. J. Ayer. In philosophy I believe this might constitute some earlier mistakes from ancient essentialists and later rationalists.
Great video. Very clear interpretation
Thanks!
Parmenides' ideas seem very compatible with Eastern non-duality. Is there any basis for thinking that he might have been inspired by Eastern thought?
Other than imagination, no.
I like this lecture! You noticed what I have noticed about the implication that there is something above Being necessitating Being to be Being and not non-Being. But you differ in your conclusion as to this apparent paradox. You say that this logical Necessity is an aspect of Being that possesses self-control or self-restraint.
Contrarily I think Parmenides does not mean this necessity to be a part of Being, but rather something transcendent that necessitates Being to be and Nonbeing to not be. Logic-Necessity is meta-metaphysical in that it “creates” Being and non-Being by defining them with logical necessity. “Create” is not an accurate term so he uses terms like “necessity or fate holding things together with its chains”. Because metaphorical language is forgivable when not strictly logically accurate when taken literally.
What do you think sir? Is Parmenides trying to transcend metaphysics by being Meta-metaphysical?
Bertrand Russell speaks of Ancient Greeks believing in a super-Olympian necessity that is all powerful that even Zeus is subject to the fates decreed for him. That the gods are subject to Fate basically in their stories just like mortals
So i do not think there is a Paradox to be solved
No
Great video, Gregory
Thanks!
I am supposed to a collage from the poem 'three oddest words' and I find the paradoxes presented in the poem hard to imagine. Do you have any suggestions on how to portray these as I find it impossible to create a form for 'nothing' or 'non-being'?
I do not
Excellent analysis of Parmenides!
Thanks!
Ah we meet again
When Parmenides talks about "what is", could it be interpreted as: all things that are and can be thought about "is what is", rather than each thing on it's own being what that one thing is?
"This apple is what this apple is" vs "This apple is, what is" and If I eat half the apple, "the apple is what the apple is, it's no different from the apple I perceived as "was", it just is" vs. "the apple, whether half being eaten or not, is 'what is' - the apple has both changed and moved, but 'what is' has not and can not"
As for sensory illusions, the only illusion truly needed to take in account would be time itself, if one accepts time as an illusion. Both "what is" as an entity on it's own and whatever is going in within "what is" - would then be static, eternal, unchanging. The human consciousness would be incomprehensible, but maybe best described as "lecta", as in the divine equivalent of the meaning behind words in a divine book - unchanging, static and eternal - yet meaningful and brought to life by having been written, read and thought of in a divine plane which can not be thought of or spoken of - this would simply serve as the closest possible analogy I can think of.
I'd stick with the text
@@GregoryBSadler My bad, I thought this was a place for discussion, not for learning how to read. The reading I have done already, several interpretations as well as a variation of translations from the original poem/fragments. The answer to the questions/ideas I commented does not have a clear answer, I was interested in your thoughts and your interpretation. I understand now this was a naive request to make from someone who prefers to stick with "the text"......
@@narcopolo4464 Nah. It was naive for you to think that with as much work as I do and as many people as I engage with, some random person is entitled to "discussion" along whatever lines they like.
If you'd like to book my time for a discussion, you can head over to my tutorials page. First openings I have are in early October
@@GregoryBSadler You are of course absolutely right. It takes some time getting used to content of this quality in this environment not coming from someone whose main priority is running a UA-cam channel. I do apologize for my tone, I realize you sharing this content is something you do on top of your main priorities which surely are time-consuming enough on their own. It's admirable and I really appreciate your videos. Thank you for the time you are putting into it, and for replying to my naive comments.
That is a very gracious and thoughtful response, for which I thank you. That's not the sort of thing I typically get here in UA-cam.
I'm moved to do something in this case. Clearly you've put a good bit of thought and research into the interpretation you've developed. I'm going to offer to meet for a free tutorial session to discuss it and look at the text together. Send me a line at greg at reasonio dot com, and we can get it set up.
The only snag is that it will have to be next month. At this point, I'm pretty slammed, and making appointments only several weeks in advance.
Are you still doing the half hour Hegels?
Discussed in the monthly update video
Thank you, this is so helpful :)
Glad to read it
Do you think Parmenides' monism is epistemological, ontological or both? Did he believe that there is literally one ontological 'is,' or does he mean there is only one way of thinking about the universe?
He obviously thinks there are multiple ways of thinking about the universe. But all but one of them are wrong
Parmenides said - Being is "like" a well rounded sphere. That doesn't mean Being is spherical or has some sort of shape - No! When we say "John is like a Lion", we don't mean John "is" a Lion.
Comparison to a well rounded sphere is made to show that - as the mass of a perfect sphere is same everywhere, from whatever point you measure - not less, not more anywhere, similarly Being is like this mass of sphere - all pervasive, same everywhere, without distinction. Its an analogy.
I am surprised that many people, including some academic scholars, think that Parmenides thought of Being as some sort of sphere. In Plato's Parmenides, it's clearly mentioned that Being "cannot" be a sphere (or any other shape), because a sphere has a centre, which is one single point while the surface has many points making contact with many different places "outside". This doesn't satisfy the definition of Being (having no parts, no begining, middle or end), hence it cannot be spherical.
Infact, Being is not objective at all such that it could be imagined in some "form". It is formless. Like mass/weight of the sphere doesn't have a form but can only be experienced when you hold it, similarly Being can only be experienced - it cannot be imagined in any form. It is formless and non-objective, yet it "IS".
Here you go: "Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πεῖρας πύµατον, τετελεσµένον ἐστί πάντοθεν, εὐκύκλου σφαίρης ἐναλίγκιον ὄγκῳ, µεσσόθεν ἰσοπαλὲς πάντῃ· τὸ γὰρ οὔτε τι µεῖζον οὔτε τι βαιότερον πελέναι χρεόν ἐστι τῇ ἢ τῇ
Search: Unity of being-Ibn Arabi
So Shakespeare was wrong to think that non-being was also an option as he (via Hamlet's famous soliloquy) questions whether to be or not to be. All this of course according to Parmenides.
Shakespeare would be stuck in a false perspective according to Parmenides
Invested Patreon Sponsors of this channel who value Dr. Sadler's output and care to donate by a monthly subscription will benefit from this lecture shortcut, an in
video hyperlink ... 0:48
Thanks again.
You're welcome!
No movto o objeto em questão atende as condições da multiplicidade e junto inclui o defeito do êrro disso decorrente para dentro do sistema.
Interesting that Parmenides conceives that things expressed in reality or necessity have existence in myths or mythology.
Has Parmenides an early conception of alienated self too in the ruminations of non being?
I don't think so. It seems more like he's articulating something closer to a monism in which individual beings are deceived about being individuals
A noção de nothing tem única funcão de atender à exigencia da logica e do dualismo. Não atende à metafisica e por isso não há o que dele se pensar.
2d Parmenides reality, no time, space, matter
Parmenides' description of the Being is entirely Vedic. Thus it's safe to say that Parmenides was of the Pythagorean school.
Nope. Don't comment here with half-baked takes
Hi,
Parmenides is just saying about you!
When you don't know yourself then you will not know Parmenides's.
Parmenides Zeno and Socrates are saying about only the same one I of people.
When you say to students your philosophies what is the saying I of you in your body?
Are there any another different I except your self I in any other universe?
I of yourself is always the only one same identical I, isn't it?
I of each people is the never be born, the never die, which is Parmenides' Being.
Without people's I Being, there can't be anything!
I is the same, Moses' I am that I am, people's I is the so called God I, no difference.
I is the beginning's words in Gospel John's, which is Jesus' I, also I of each people.
Here this suggest to see Thomas Gospel 77,
Have nice day.