Parmenides' theory of Being stems from the foundational idea that language and reality are inherently interconnected, but is this true? In Parmenides's native language at the time uttering "yes" and "no" had to involve a determination regarding the reality or unreality of the objects mentioned in the statements. Consequently, "yes," or "is," assumes the role of signifying truth, while "no," or "it is not," denotes its opposite. It seems to me the Eleatic conception of reality is caused by a limitation in language.
Great job! The Parmenidean One, "Brahman" of the Vedas, the God of the Abrahamic religion, and even "energy" as defined by the first laws of thermodynamics, in my view are all essentially the same.
An easier way to explain why he didn't think there is change, is that things in order to move would have to move into a space that is not. Things would have to move into an empty space. He didn't think there is anything as empty space. He thought the whole idea was preposterous. So if there is no change then there is no time, there is no free will and there is one homogeneous being that doesn't move and is eternal indestructible.
I agree. The rejection of empty space, often associated with the denial of a void, is a theme that appears in the works of several ancient Greek philosophers including Parmenides. Aristotle, influenced by Parmenides, also argued against the possibility of a vacuum. This mainly philosophical idea has been replaced by the empirical findings of scientists like John Dalton, J.J. Thomson, and Niels Bohr.
Parmenides is amongst the greatest philosophers in history. Without a doubt he is the most influential philosopher in Western Philosophy. He is the true Father of Logic, Father of Ontology and Metaphysics, and Godfather of Western Philosophy. Epistemology also owes a lot to Parmenides. It is said that Western Philosophy are footnotes to Plato, in which case Plato's philosophy are footnotes to Parmenides. Both Socrates and Plato had so much reverence for Parmenides that they referred to him as "our venerable father". It is a shame that his intellect has not been appreciated over the course of history as it should have been, but this is due to most people lacking the intellect to truly understand Parmenidean Ontology and Metaphysics as well as it's significance. He is probably the most misunderstood and misrepresented philosopher in history.
This put here, Heraclitus and Parmenides are saying the same thing, which is I of each people, which is God, which people believe. Hera's Logos is people's I, the eternal life, is Par's One. When Zeno say paradox, he is just saying, Everything is only the same I, there is no difference between this that birth and death. When people are awakened, then they will say the same words of the One. Alpha and omega is also the one and same. Have nice day.
This paradox is solved by reason by evoking the concept of mathematical limit (in general making the steps smaller and smaller, to infinte) and this is what is done in physics. Indeed, when you cannot take limits, things blow up and you have to either use steps to simulate or there is something weird going one. This is what happened to when quantum mechanics was discovered. When you took the limit to infinite of what was the energy of gas molecules, in a box, it blow up, went fo infinite. This is when it was postulated a constant, plank constant, which made this problem manageable, to send it to a limit.
Calculus doesn't solve this paradox , it just solved tge paradox when applied to pure mathematics or physics. Also if someone says he understands quantum mechanics, he doesn't really understands it 😂
hey mark. can i ask you what software you're using for the presentation (ie the bit with the mountains and zooming in through the 'o' at the beginning?)
I dont tbink Parmenides thought all is one. His vision was that if there is nothing then it can never be something. And if there is something then it has always been something and it can never be nothing. He is talking about the essential existence of the universe snd not its multiplicity. One argument for God is to point to the universe and say something cannot come from nothing - which is what Parmenides says. However this can also mean that the essential existence of the universe is causeless, self sufficient and infinite - no beginning and no end. These are qualities either God must have or the universe itself. This was expressed in a slightly different wsy by ibn Sina in 13th century - that if anything exists at all then there is a compulsory necesary being which must exist that is causeless self sufficient and infinite outside of time and space - the necessary being. Al Biruni disagreed but failed to address the question that if the universe must have a cause, then what caused the causer? Modern cosmology says there was a big bang but it does not say that before it there was nothing.The James Webb telescope is now suggssting the truth of this by implying that there may well have been a big bang, but it was not the beginning. There was a before.
Before dealing with Ultimate Questions, try with simpler ones, like geographic notions. Someone already mentioned that Elea, currently Velia, is located in Southern Italy. Moreover Pythagoras was born in Samos, but spent the most part of his life in Crotone and Sibari, two towns also in Southern Italy
The Absolute is the all in one in all. That which is nothing in particular is by definition everything in general. Only that which is can doubt it. There is that which is. There is not that which is that is other than that which is, for if there was anything other, it would still be that which is - that we 'call' other - thus not other at all. Therefore, that which is, is all - inclusive. Change is cyclical. The senses bring experience. Being converts experience into awareness (learning) and awareness into experience (creating desirable outcomes). Awareness and experience are the twin poles of the continuum of being. Reality = that which is Being = potential Existence = actual The nature of the Absolute is to function/serve as a diversified unity (continuum of being) that actualizes as a unified diversity or Uni - verse. What we are aware of is experience.
Parmenides was spot-on! ❤️ His Monism is same as Advaita. The only difference being, Advaita refuses to use the word "One" to be technically accurate. Because to know something as One, you need another (a background) against which the One stands out as One. To solve this inability of words to reach the One, Advaita uses apophatic language. Hence it says Not-Two or Non-Dual (A-dvaita) instead of saying The One. I wish we knew more about Parmenides & his work. He was a King among philosophers.
Parmenides: Because That which is, is all-inclusive, Absolute, it's nature is to 'Serve' as the Infinite, Eternal Continuum of Being, that functions as a diversified unity of potential (Creative Intelligence), actualizing as a unified diversity or Uni-verse, and thus is the one Absolute Being in which all relative beings live, move and have their Being, the Whole that is ever greater than the sum of it's constituents, the center of which is everywhere and the circumference of which is nowhere, the All in One in All. Dialectic = what appears as_____, is in Reality_____. What appears as separate and opposite is in Reality - Continuum. We receive impressions from the 5 senses (modalities) that our brain organizes into perceptions which it represents as qualia. What we experience are the qualia or qualities (submodalities) of our perceptions. The brain interprets our representations as meaning derived from the 'driving' submodalities that change our inner state of Being as they change. Relief is never more than a submodality change or two away. What anything means is determined by perspective, which provides the context of meaning. Metaprograms: Inner/Outer More/Less Better/Worse For/not For Being aware of being aware is unmodulated by the 5 senses, thus unfettered, which is the resonant state frequency closest in alignment to the frequency of the all-inclusive Absolute, where all things are possible (Wisdom and Understanding). As the eye us a lamp unto the body, so is perspective to the Mind. Therefore, if your eye (perspective) on Life be single (all-inclusive), then your whole Being will be full if Life, and the Light if Wisdom and Understanding). The Light if Wisdom and Understanding dispels the darkness if ignorance and folly. To one that has shall more be given..... Justice = just so. Being aware of nothing, is still being aware - of being aware. I am something, I am nothing, I am everything. Is not is the negative expression of what something is in terms of what it is not, for the purpose of identification. That which is, is not that which is not That which is. Since there is That which is, there is not that which is that is other than That which is, for if there was something other, it would still be That which is, that we merely call other. Therefore, That which is, is all-inclusive. We actualize potential by dreaming our experience and experiencing our dream. We employ awareness to learn from experience how to better dream our experience and experience our dream. To be is to know. To know is to do or not do. Sat = Being Chit = Aware Ananda = Bliss If you are, and are aware, why would you not follow your bliss? The greatest thing we can learn in Life is how to learn from our own experience. All things are possible with the Creative Process/Inquiry: Mentation - Metanoia - Mutation 1. Immersion (mentatiin) 2. Saturation 3. Incubation 4. Fruition (metanoia) 5. Confirmation (mutation) 6. Implementation 7. Calibration Zeno: Dualism is purely conceptual, reifying holistic perceptions into dualistic concepts. Thus, concepts distort awareness of the Continuum of Reality/Being/Life, unless their inherent commonality is recognized - that the two ends if a stick are the one Continuum we call 'stick'. Truthformation: I am a Creative Intelligence/Life/Presence being aware of being aware - of mindfully experiencing the activity of_____, at this moment.
Let’s see what Advaita Vedanta says. There is only Being. Pure Being can manifest itself to itself as appearances, All the phenomena are appearances, “Appearance” is the root meaning of the word “Phenomenon”. So, the real nature of everything and every being is Being. The multiplicity is just an appearance, that is, the single seems to be multiple. Based on interpretations of what we perceive, we create divisions in life. But interpretations depend on knowledge, which is always incomplete, The senses and reason are limited. All the interpretations about “what is” are incomplete, therefore false. So, division and separativiness are false. Perceiving this, there is quietness, silence, regarding the comprehension of the totality. The Silence is the Truth. Silence is immeasurable. It is unknowable from the point of view of the appearance named "Intellect". Silence is what I am, because Silence is the essence. "Tat Twam Asi" (Thou art That).
hes simply stating the most obvious and basic fact of matter: there is nothing other than what is. I mean, how can there be? There cannot be nothing because there is nowhere for nothing to be if it is in fact NOTHING. For it to be nothing, it must be something, therefore is not nothing. A good way to grasp the concept is trying to imagine what was in existence prior to existence - not just Humanity but the universe. What was it? Blackness? But how could that be if blackness is something whilst we are looking for nothing? we cannot even conceive of such a thing. Therefore what is is and what is not is not.
+Tristan Hurley There is such a thing as void. Also, there are things that we can imagine (like a square circle or "nothing"), that don't exist in the real world. And finally, there is a difference between ZERO and NULL. Zero is a placeholder for a quantity, while it has no quantity itself. Yet, it's still considered a number. If you think of "nothing" like a "zero," then it's easy to see how it could and does exist.
This. The teachings of the Goddess should be kept in mind at all times whenever attempting philosophy. The moment that one forgets that Being is omnipresent, that is when incoherence and contradiction begins to seep in.
Parmenidean Ontology is not opposite of Heraclitus' Ontology. In fact, Parmenides acknowledges the existence of change and goes beyond Heraclitus to prove through pure reason that change exists within the World of Appearances, which is ultimately illusory. Heraclitus never was able to demonstrate anything about change other than it APPEARS to exist, which any 5 year old child can demonstrate.
Dear Prof Thorsby, I feel like you don't understand Parmenides very well. I think that Parmenides is talking about two different dimensions when he talks about the "is" and the "is-not." The "is" is the stuff that we can know with our reason/nous (hence it is the way of "persuasion" and "dialectic"). And the "is-not" is not the "nothing," but rather the stuff-in-the-world that we are not or cannot be conscious of with our minds. I don't think he says all the things about time and change that you think he says. He says that the ideas (ie, the "is") is indeed not moved, but he can't be claiming that there is no change or time at all. Furthermore, if it's true that Parmenides thinks that reason and persuasion does exist, and the process of reasoning is itself a process of change (eg, from one though to another), then the belief in the rational process is incompatible with the denial of change. When he says that the "is" isn't moved, he simply means that ideas themselves don't move/change. This still isn't to deny that something else doesn't move through the ideas... Finally, Zeno is a paradox-mongerer. I don't think that Zeno has any place in this discussion at this stage, because it just adds a complication that has nothing to do with Parmenides and what's already complicated for obvious reasons.
+Tristan Hurley If there's a "this," then there's also a "that." If you have a numerical "one," then you necessarily have at least two different things, since if you have a "one" then you have "one" and beyond its edges is whatever is "not-one." The "this" is called the realm of the Mind, while the "that" is what Hesiod called "Chaos," the Whole. I think Parmenides was trying to say that we can only "know" the "that" as "this." Perhaps this is what transcendence is; a kind of integrity between the "this" and "that."
Kendi Kim there is both "this" and "that" within "what is" - try to conceive of anything beyond "what is" and you will find it is, what Parmenides called "what is not". Grasp the essence of what he saying before anything else is how find it best to get my head around.
This video is gold. Should have millions of views.
Parmenides' theory of Being stems from the foundational idea that language and reality are inherently interconnected, but is this true? In Parmenides's native language at the time uttering "yes" and "no" had to involve a determination regarding the reality or unreality of the objects mentioned in the statements. Consequently, "yes," or "is," assumes the role of signifying truth, while "no," or "it is not," denotes its opposite. It seems to me the Eleatic conception of reality is caused by a limitation in language.
Great job!
The Parmenidean One, "Brahman" of the Vedas, the God of the Abrahamic religion, and even "energy" as defined by the first laws of thermodynamics, in my view are all essentially the same.
As usually seen with double honors, you got him wrong
An easier way to explain why he didn't think there is change, is that things in order to move would have to move into a space that is not. Things would have to move into an empty space. He didn't think there is anything as empty space. He thought the whole idea was preposterous. So if there is no change then there is no time, there is no free will and there is one homogeneous being that doesn't move and is eternal indestructible.
Actually that is a wrong understanding. Parmenides specifically stated that change exists only in the World of Appearances. 😊
I agree. The rejection of empty space, often associated with the denial of a void, is a theme that appears in the works of several ancient Greek philosophers including Parmenides. Aristotle, influenced by Parmenides, also argued against the possibility of a vacuum. This mainly philosophical idea has been replaced by the empirical findings of scientists like John Dalton, J.J. Thomson, and Niels Bohr.
Parmenides is amongst the greatest philosophers in history. Without a doubt he is the most influential philosopher in Western Philosophy. He is the true Father of Logic, Father of Ontology and Metaphysics, and Godfather of Western Philosophy. Epistemology also owes a lot to Parmenides. It is said that Western Philosophy are footnotes to Plato, in which case Plato's philosophy are footnotes to Parmenides. Both Socrates and Plato had so much reverence for Parmenides that they referred to him as "our venerable father". It is a shame that his intellect has not been appreciated over the course of history as it should have been, but this is due to most people lacking the intellect to truly understand Parmenidean Ontology and Metaphysics as well as it's significance. He is probably the most misunderstood and misrepresented philosopher in history.
It's interesting that Parmenide's solution for being is similar to the way Vishnu is defined on Bhaghavad Gita, chapter 11.
many people say this and i enjoy the idea, but i dont believe they are the same.
Wow finally someone made a video that's clear and possible to understand
Great lesson!
I have named my son Zeno after the famous disciple of Parmenides
This put here,
Heraclitus and Parmenides are saying the same thing,
which is I of each people, which is God, which people believe.
Hera's Logos is people's I, the eternal life, is Par's One.
When Zeno say paradox, he is just saying,
Everything is only the same I, there is no difference between this that birth and death.
When people are awakened, then they will say the same words of the One.
Alpha and omega is also the one and same.
Have nice day.
Wonderful✨😍
Thank you
Really good thanks
This paradox is solved by reason by evoking the concept of mathematical limit (in general making the steps smaller and smaller, to infinte) and this is what is done in physics. Indeed, when you cannot take limits, things blow up and you have to either use steps to simulate or there is something weird going one. This is what happened to when quantum mechanics was discovered. When you took the limit to infinite of what was the energy of gas molecules, in a box, it blow up, went fo infinite. This is when it was postulated a constant, plank constant, which made this problem manageable, to send it to a limit.
All paradoxes are resolved by getting clear on definitions. Paradoxes are parasitic on equivocations.
Calculus doesn't solve this paradox , it just solved tge paradox when applied to pure mathematics or physics. Also if someone says he understands quantum mechanics, he doesn't really understands it 😂
hey mark. can i ask you what software you're using for the presentation (ie the bit with the mountains and zooming in through the 'o' at the beginning?)
hi Tristan.
I dont tbink Parmenides thought all is one. His vision was that if there is nothing then it can never be something. And if there is something then it has always been something and it can never be nothing. He is talking about the essential existence of the universe snd not its multiplicity. One argument for God is to point to the universe and say something cannot come from nothing - which is what Parmenides says. However this can also mean that the essential existence of the universe is causeless, self sufficient and infinite - no beginning and no end. These are qualities either God must have or the universe itself. This was expressed in a slightly different wsy by ibn Sina in 13th century - that if anything exists at all then there is a compulsory necesary being which must exist that is causeless self sufficient and infinite outside of time and space - the necessary being. Al Biruni disagreed but failed to address the question that if the universe must have a cause, then what caused the causer? Modern cosmology says there was a big bang but it does not say that before it there was nothing.The James Webb telescope is now suggssting the truth of this by implying that there may well have been a big bang, but it was not the beginning. There was a before.
Before dealing with Ultimate Questions, try with simpler ones, like geographic notions. Someone already mentioned that Elea, currently Velia, is located in Southern Italy. Moreover Pythagoras was born in Samos, but spent the most part of his life in Crotone and Sibari, two towns also in Southern Italy
LOL
I... thank you
The Absolute is the all in one in all.
That which is nothing in particular is by definition everything in general.
Only that which is can doubt it.
There is that which is.
There is not that which is that is other than that which is, for if there was anything other, it would still be that which is - that we 'call' other - thus not other at all.
Therefore, that which is, is all - inclusive.
Change is cyclical.
The senses bring experience. Being converts experience into awareness (learning) and awareness into experience (creating desirable outcomes). Awareness and experience are the twin poles of the continuum of being.
Reality = that which is
Being = potential
Existence = actual
The nature of the Absolute is to function/serve as a diversified unity (continuum of being) that actualizes as a unified diversity or Uni - verse.
What we are aware of is experience.
Can time be multiplied?
40:10 That's not correct. that "distance" you mean is not "infinite" but a "differential". In sciences it is called "d(x)".
Parmenides was spot-on! ❤️
His Monism is same as Advaita. The only difference being, Advaita refuses to use the word "One" to be technically accurate. Because to know something as One, you need another (a background) against which the One stands out as One. To solve this inability of words to reach the One, Advaita uses apophatic language. Hence it says Not-Two or Non-Dual (A-dvaita) instead of saying The One. I wish we knew more about Parmenides & his work. He was a King among philosophers.
Nothing Parmenides said had to do with any religion
so to understand what is cannot become?
Yup. Becoming merely exists as appearances, which are ultimately illusory.
Parmenides:
Because That which is, is all-inclusive, Absolute, it's nature is to 'Serve' as the Infinite, Eternal Continuum of Being, that functions as a diversified unity of potential (Creative Intelligence), actualizing as a unified diversity or Uni-verse, and thus is the one Absolute Being in which all relative beings live, move and have their Being, the Whole that is ever greater than the sum of it's constituents, the center of which is everywhere and the circumference of which is nowhere, the All in One in All.
Dialectic = what appears as_____, is in Reality_____.
What appears as separate and opposite is in Reality - Continuum.
We receive impressions from the 5 senses (modalities) that our brain organizes into perceptions which it represents as qualia. What we experience are the qualia or qualities (submodalities) of our perceptions. The brain interprets our representations as meaning derived from the 'driving' submodalities that change our inner state of Being as they change. Relief is never more than a submodality change or two away.
What anything means is determined by perspective, which provides the context of meaning.
Metaprograms:
Inner/Outer
More/Less
Better/Worse
For/not For
Being aware of being aware is unmodulated by the 5 senses, thus unfettered, which is the resonant state frequency closest in alignment to the frequency of the all-inclusive Absolute, where all things are possible (Wisdom and Understanding).
As the eye us a lamp unto the body, so is perspective to the Mind. Therefore, if your eye (perspective) on Life be single (all-inclusive), then your whole Being will be full if Life, and the Light if Wisdom and Understanding).
The Light if Wisdom and Understanding dispels the darkness if ignorance and folly.
To one that has shall more be given.....
Justice = just so.
Being aware of nothing, is still being aware - of being aware.
I am something, I am nothing, I am everything.
Is not is the negative expression of what something is in terms of what it is not, for the purpose of identification.
That which is, is not that which is not That which is.
Since there is That which is, there is not that which is that is other than That which is, for if there was something other, it would still be That which is, that we merely call other. Therefore, That which is, is all-inclusive.
We actualize potential by dreaming our experience and experiencing our dream.
We employ awareness to learn from experience how to better dream our experience and experience our dream.
To be is to know. To know is to do or not do.
Sat = Being
Chit = Aware
Ananda = Bliss
If you are, and are aware, why would you not follow your bliss?
The greatest thing we can learn in Life is how to learn from our own experience.
All things are possible with the Creative Process/Inquiry:
Mentation - Metanoia - Mutation
1. Immersion (mentatiin)
2. Saturation
3. Incubation
4. Fruition (metanoia)
5. Confirmation (mutation)
6. Implementation
7. Calibration
Zeno:
Dualism is purely conceptual, reifying holistic perceptions into dualistic concepts. Thus, concepts distort awareness of the Continuum of Reality/Being/Life, unless their inherent commonality is recognized - that the two ends if a stick are the one Continuum we call 'stick'.
Truthformation:
I am a Creative Intelligence/Life/Presence being aware of being aware - of mindfully experiencing the activity of_____, at this moment.
Let’s see what Advaita Vedanta says. There is only Being. Pure Being can manifest itself to itself as appearances, All the phenomena are appearances, “Appearance” is the root meaning of the word “Phenomenon”. So, the real nature of everything and every being is Being. The multiplicity is just an appearance, that is, the single seems to be multiple. Based on interpretations of what we perceive, we create divisions in life. But interpretations depend on knowledge, which is always incomplete, The senses and reason are limited. All the interpretations about “what is” are incomplete, therefore false. So, division and separativiness are false.
Perceiving this, there is quietness, silence, regarding the comprehension of the totality. The Silence is the Truth. Silence is immeasurable. It is unknowable from the point of view of the appearance named "Intellect". Silence is what I am, because Silence is the essence.
"Tat Twam Asi" (Thou art That).
hes simply stating the most obvious and basic fact of matter: there is nothing other than what is. I mean, how can there be? There cannot be nothing because there is nowhere for nothing to be if it is in fact NOTHING. For it to be nothing, it must be something, therefore is not nothing. A good way to grasp the concept is trying to imagine what was in existence prior to existence - not just Humanity but the universe. What was it? Blackness? But how could that be if blackness is something whilst we are looking for nothing? we cannot even conceive of such a thing. Therefore what is is and what is not is not.
+Tristan Hurley There is such a thing as void. Also, there are things that we can imagine (like a square circle or "nothing"), that don't exist in the real world. And finally, there is a difference between ZERO and NULL. Zero is a placeholder for a quantity, while it has no quantity itself. Yet, it's still considered a number. If you think of "nothing" like a "zero," then it's easy to see how it could and does exist.
Kendi Kim you are yet to even grasp the concept.
This. The teachings of the Goddess should be kept in mind at all times whenever attempting philosophy. The moment that one forgets that Being is omnipresent, that is when incoherence and contradiction begins to seep in.
You have to mention that Parmenides was from the Persian empire
LOL
Lol .... He was Greek , born in southern Italy under the Roman Empire
@@rishabhchauhan9059 you your facts mixed up there was no Roman Empire at the time
Parmenidean Ontology is not opposite of Heraclitus' Ontology. In fact, Parmenides acknowledges the existence of change and goes beyond Heraclitus to prove through pure reason that change exists within the World of Appearances, which is ultimately illusory. Heraclitus never was able to demonstrate anything about change other than it APPEARS to exist, which any 5 year old child can demonstrate.
Dear Prof Thorsby, I feel like you don't understand Parmenides very well. I think that Parmenides is talking about two different dimensions when he talks about the "is" and the "is-not." The "is" is the stuff that we can know with our reason/nous (hence it is the way of "persuasion" and "dialectic"). And the "is-not" is not the "nothing," but rather the stuff-in-the-world that we are not or cannot be conscious of with our minds.
I don't think he says all the things about time and change that you think he says. He says that the ideas (ie, the "is") is indeed not moved, but he can't be claiming that there is no change or time at all.
Furthermore, if it's true that Parmenides thinks that reason and persuasion does exist, and the process of reasoning is itself a process of change (eg, from one though to another), then the belief in the rational process is incompatible with the denial of change. When he says that the "is" isn't moved, he simply means that ideas themselves don't move/change. This still isn't to deny that something else doesn't move through the ideas...
Finally, Zeno is a paradox-mongerer. I don't think that Zeno has any place in this discussion at this stage, because it just adds a complication that has nothing to do with Parmenides and what's already complicated for obvious reasons.
Kendi Kim who said anything about two different dimensions? there is only this dimension.
+Tristan Hurley If there's a "this," then there's also a "that." If you have a numerical "one," then you necessarily have at least two different things, since if you have a "one" then you have "one" and beyond its edges is whatever is "not-one."
The "this" is called the realm of the Mind, while the "that" is what Hesiod called "Chaos," the Whole. I think Parmenides was trying to say that we can only "know" the "that" as "this." Perhaps this is what transcendence is; a kind of integrity between the "this" and "that."
Kendi Kim there is both "this" and "that" within "what is" - try to conceive of anything beyond "what is" and you will find it is, what Parmenides called "what is not". Grasp the essence of what he saying before anything else is how find it best to get my head around.
+Tristan Hurley You said what I said. Your "what is not" is the same thing as my "not-one." You're weird.
Kendi Kim no it isnt.
sounds like advaita vedanta