Ancient
bust of Parmenides.
In
truth, the facial features of Parmenides are invented because
unknown,
like
those of all the pre-socratic philosophers. In fact, chronologically
the
first philosopher whose physical appearance is known is Socrates.
THE
“VISION” AND REASONING OF PARMENIDES
“All
things are one, and this one is Being” (*)
According
to Parmenides, existing cosmic space is not unlimited but is an
enormous sphere.
It is
entirely filled by “Being”. “Being”
is the only and homogeneous substance that, permeating all things
(including human beings and the air) that
our senses perceive in the cosmos, constitutes the cosmos itself.
In fact, in the “vision” of the eleatic philosopher the
cosmos is not composed of numerous entities – planets, stars,
people, animals, trees, flowers, houses, mountains, clouds, etc., of
different appearance and color, capable of transformation, movement,
birth and death – that appear daily before our eyes, but
consists of Being, which is an eternal, not generated, one, huge,
limited, spherical, motionless substance, not becoming but always
equal to itself, homogeneous, of the same density everywhere, not
divided into multiple “things” but continuous.
So:
only Being exists. This Being, which is one, is perceived by humans
as “broken” in many things, all the things that our
deceptive sight daily sees:
“To
this One so many names will be assigned
as
many are the things that mortals proposed, believing that they were
true,
that they were born and perish, that they exist and do not exist,
that they changed the place and their bright color” (8,38-41)
Literal translation:
"It will have for name all things,
how many the mortals proposed, believing that they were true,
that they were born and perish, that they exist and do not [exist],
that they changed the place and their bright color" (8,38-41)
Left
picture:
Parmenides’ Being is not divided into land, water, air, people,
animals, etc.; it is a huge spherical mass of homogeneous, of the
same density everywhere, continuous, undivided, always the same,
eternal substance. It fills the entire cosmos and therefore
constitutes the cosmos.
Right
picture: Instead,
our sight perceives Being, the reality, as made of many “things”:
land, sea, sky, people, animals, trees, houses, etc., which over time
change their shape, color and place, born and die.
Then,
inside all the apparent “things” – that appear to
us separate from each other and bound to be born, to change and to
perish – there is a single and immutable substrate, an
indivisible and eternal substance, which is “Being”. It
is the foundation of the apparent “things”, it is the
substance that uniformly permeates the entire cosmos. The universe is
made from a continuous substance, it is an homogeneous “continuum”,
which seems to us broken into multiple “objects” of
different appearance and color, capable of transformation, movement,
birth and death. If
“Being” did not exist, our senses could not perceive the
“appearances” and even the appearance of human beings,
and also of themselves, and our mind could not think anything,
including itself, nothing would exist.
(*) The
doctrine of Parmenides is summarized in these words by Aristotle in
“Metaphysics”, III, 4, 1001 a 29.
Aristotle also wrote: “Some philosophers argued that the
universe is an only entity
… these philosophers say that the One is motionless …
Parmenides, considering that beside Being there is no Non-Being, must
necessarily believe that Being is one; he, forced however to take into account the things that appear to our senses, and assuming that the one is according to
reason while the multiplicity is according to senses, supposes two
causes and two principles, the hot and the cold, that is, the fire
and the earth; and he assigns to hot the rank of Being and to cold
the rank of Non-Being” (Metaphysics, I, 5, 986 b 18 – 987
a 1).
And Theophrastus, a disciple of Aristotle and his successor as head of
the Lyceum, in the first book of his “Physics”, writes:
“Parmenides believed that in accordance with
truth the whole is one,
not generated and spherical, while, in accordance with the opinion of
many, in order to explain the origin of things that appear to our senses, supposed
two principles, the fire and the earth”.
Plato writes in his dialogue “Theaetetus” (180 e): “Melissus
and Parmenides argue that all
things are one and
it is stable in itself, not having a place to move”.
And in his dialogue “The sofist” (242 d) Plato writes:
“Eleatic philosophers argue that what
is commonly defined as ‘all things’ is one thing”.
How
should be really the appearances
“You
also will learn how should be interpreted
the
appearances that pass all continuously” (1,31-32)
Literal translation:
“But
you will learn these things also, how
should
be really the appearances that pass all continuously” (1,31-32)
Hence,
Being is an uniform and stationary globe, in which it seems to us
there are moving shapes and colors; it is a huge body in which we
perceive, as colorful and moving figurines, the appearances (people,
animals, trees, flowers, mountains, rivers, etc.).
The
things that we perceive with our senses (“ta dokounta”=
the appearances) exist, but not as such, not as individual bodies,
separated from each other, multiple and changing. Their substrate,
their constituent substance, which is Being, exists. They are made of
the same single, eternal, unchangeable and motionless substance,
while they seem born and die, move and change. All these apparent
objects, including
air (in fact the air is not the void and therefore contains the same
quantity of “being” than solids and liquid contain), are
contiguous and without boundaries that define them and therefore
continuous and are all made from a single substance, from an
homogeneous “continuum” which is Being.
“Being”
is, “Non-Being” is not
Since
Being fills the entire existing space (“it touches the
borders”: 8,49) and coincides with it, outside of it and beyond
it there is nothing else. Hypothetical entities external to Being
cannot exist and should not even be thought of, because, being
physically and conceptually outside the sphere of Being, that is, of
what exists, cannot exist.
But not
only “Non-Being” does not exist outside of the sphere of
Being; it does not even exist inside Being (under the unthinkable
aspect of emptiness, of change in shape, color and place, of birth
and death).
“Being”
does not change
Parmenides’
Being does not change, does not become, does not move, always remains
the same and is everlasting. In truth, from the logical point of
view, if something is different today from what it was in the past,
it is no longer the same thing. If a green leaf becomes yellow, it is
no longer the same entity; if a man who has black hair then will have
white, he is no longer the same man; a plant that forms new branches
and buds is not the same anymore but another; and so on.
Parmenides
and his disciples believe that if Being was subject to
transformation, to change, it gradually become non-being; in fact the
entities, becoming,
a) become
something else, other than themselves, losing their identity, their
essence: “If it changes, it must destroy what was, and “what
is not” must be born: so Being perished and Non-Being was
born” (Melissus of Samos, disciple and exegete of Parmenides:
7,2; 8,6);
b) and
gradually come to death: “If Being would change even only a
hair in ten thousand years, it would be completely destroyed in the
duration of time” (Melissus 7,2).
Logical
reasoning tells us that a body, to remain itself, cannot change and,
if it does not change, will remain forever.
“Thinking
and that because of which there is thinking are
the same thing”
Since
Being is the only existing entity, it is the only object of thought:
“thinking and that because of which there is thinking are the
same thing” (8,34), “it is the same to think and to be”
(fragment 3). If nothing existed, there would be nothing to think
about. If Being did not exist, the thought would not even exist. “In
fact, without Being … you will not find thinking”
(8,35-36). The thought is thought of Being. Being is at the same time
what exists and the only object of thought.
Is
Parmenides’ Being object or concept?
I
think that Parmenides is started from logical reasoning I have
explained in my book and in which I cannot expand here for reasons of
space and then has performed the fusion between thought and being,
between thinking and what is thought, between logical concept and
cosmos. So in the fragment 8 Being – that in the previous
fragments represented the logic concept of “existing”,
was “what is” conceptually, as opposed to non-being, that
is, to nothing – assumes the physical configuration of “what
exists in the cosmos”, of the only and uniform substance
constituting the cosmos, until to coincide with the cosmos itself. In
fact we see that it shows to have a physical consistence: it is
“continuous” (8,6; 8,25); “But since there is an
extreme limit, it is limited” (8,42); “it touches the
borders” (8,49); and this “Being” is great,
restrained “within the limits of great bonds” (8,26).
Parmenides’
Being is therefore the unitary physical substance of the world and at
the same time the logical concept of “existing”. In his
absolutely unitary “vision” Parmenides theorizes an
entity that is simultaneously: physical-cosmological:
it is all that exists in the cosmos, and then the cosmos itself;
metaphysical:
it is the invisible substance “behind” all individual
apparent things that we perceive every day,
constituting and permeating them; ontological:
it is the only existing being, is “what is”;
logical-conceptual:
since it is the only existing body, is the only object of thought;
the mind reunifies Being, which senses had mistakenly divided into
many things.
“Ways”
and “speeches” of Parmenides: there
is no “third speech” (so-called “third way”)
In my
book I preferred speak of speech
on Truth and speech
on Opinions, instead of – as other Authors did – way
of Truth and way
of Opinions. Parmenides himself, when will talk about speech, uses
the words “logos” (“pistòn logon =
trustworthy speech: 8,50) and “muthos” (2,1; 8,1); when
he intends to speak about way, uses the terms “odòs =
way (8,1; 8,18) and “odòs dizèsios = way of
inquiry (2,2; 6,3; 7,2). Distinguishing speeches and ways, I was able
to conclude that the speeches of Parmenides are two: that on Truth,
revealed by the Goddess to Parmenides (fragments from 2 to 8,50), and
that on Opinions, submitted by the Goddess to Parmenides as
misleading (fragments from 8,50 to 19). In conclusion, the existing
speech is ONE,
that of the truth and Being, because the second, speaking about
appearances, is not valid. Instead the ways of inquiry are four: ONE
exact (“Being is”: 2,3; 6,1; 8,2) and three erroneous
(“Being is not”: 2,5; “Being and Non-Being are
regarded as the same thing and not the same thing”: 6, 8-9;
“There are things that are not”: 7,1).
Some
notable Authors, very valid translators, interpreters and
commentators of the Greek philosophers and talented philosophers
themselves have suggested a “third speech” in Parmenides’
poem, that of “plausible appearances”. They have been
misled by:
- a not completely accurate translation and/or interpretation of the
verses 1,31-32 and 8,38-41;
- the apparent contradiction between 8,50-52 and 8,60-61;
- the fact that Parmenides spends many verses (fragments 9-19 and missing
verses between them) to the description of the apparent world,
whereas – in their opinion – if it is “deceptive”
rather than “plausible”, it does not deserve them.
In
truth, the verses 1,31-32 are clear. The Goddess tells Parmenides
that he must learn all the things, namely:
a) the
solid heart of the well-round Truth, that is Being (speech on truth:
fragment from 2 to 8,50);
b) the
opinions of mortals, that is appearances, in which there is no real
certainty (speech on the opinions of mortals: fragments from 8,50 to
19);
c) “how”
the appearances, which pass continuously, should be really, that is,
“how” the appearances referred in the speech b) should
be interpreted.
POINT
c) ANTICIPATES THE EXPLANATION OF THE SPEECH b), then contained in
8,38-41 (“To
this One so many names will be assigned/as many are the things that
mortals proposed, believing that they were true,/ that they were born
and perish, that they exist and do not exist,/ that they changed the
place and their bright color”).
IT IS NOT A THIRD SPEECH!
Everything
the Goddess tells Parmenides after 8,50-52
“NOW I INTERRUPT the trustworthy speech
and reflection about truth: HENCEFORTH learn the opinions of mortals
listening to the deceptive construction of my words” is
false, is appearance.
The
fact that in 8,60-61 the Goddess says “To you I completely
expose the likely cosmic order, so some opinion of mortals will
never surpass you” does not means that the verses 8,53-59 tell
lies and those of fragments from 9 to 19 present “plausible”
descriptions: both
the ones and the others have been correctly placed by Diels after the
watershed of 8,50-52
and are all human opinions, whether they belong to other mortals
whether they belong to Parmenides, suggested to him by the Goddess
with an only dialectical purpose, as we will see later. In fact, the
dualism (“in this they were wrong”: 8,54) of the verses
8,53-59 continues in fragment 9: “since, if neither the one nor
the other is present, there is nothing”, but always according
to the erroneous belief of mortals! WE
ARE ALWAYS AFTER 8,50-52, THE WATERSHED!
In the
speech on Truth there is no place for dualism, nor – of course
– for pluralism. In Parmenides’ doctrine there is the
apotheosis of monism, his monism is absolute: one is Being, which is
improperly divided by mortals in many things (8,38-41); one is the
mind, which assists all men (fragment 16) and thinks Being (4,2-4;
8,34-36); one is the way (“with many voices” [1,2], with
many hypotheses, only one of which is that of Truth, of Being: “that
Being is” [2,3; 6,1; 8,2]); and these entities, the mind, the
Goddess, the way, converge and are contained in the only correct
speech (that of divine Truth, known only by the Goddess and revealed
only to Parmenides); they, like all the others that we perceive or
imagine, are manifestations of Being, are imbued with the unitary
substance of Being.
So –
supporters of the “third speech” are asking – why
Parmenides devotes many verses, the entire third part of the poem
(after the proem and the speech on truth), to the description of
appearances?
The
Goddess herself explains partly it: “so some opinion of mortals
will never surpass you” (8,61). She wants his protégé,
in a likely dialectical contest with other thinkers, after he
presented his theory on Being, is not exceeded by the other men even
in “deceptive” (8,52) description of the wonderful and
varied appearances. Parmenides (“the man who knows”: 1,3)
will tell to other men (“who know nothing”: 6,4): I,
chosen by the Goddess, know how is the real world, the world of
Being, known only by the Gods and revealed only to me, but if you
want I compete with you in describing the world as we mortals see it,
I can do it in a more detailed and more poetic manner than all of
you.
We must
also consider that Parmenides has decided to present his
philosophical theory in poetry and not in prose. After the proem,
evocative and poetic, he was however obliged to express in verses
(not poetic: Parmenides is a great philosopher, but has not the
poetic genius of Lucretius who was able to transpose philosophical
theories of Epicurus admirably in poetry, so that Foscolo called “De
rerum natura” with the words “the superhuman poem of
Lucretius”) from fragment 2 to fragment 8 heavy and not very
poetic philosophical statements on Being. He now absolutely needs to
continue the poem writing widely about something poetic, that is, the
world of Opinions, because, even if it is only apparent, it is very
beautiful, full of stars, constellations, human beings, sun’s
rays, reflected light of the moon that shines in the night, etc.
Another
reason is probably as follows. Parmenides had carried for many years,
like his predecessors, the activity of naturalist philosopher. During
that activity he had achieved important knowledge and discoveries;
probably he was collecting his observations and reflections on
natural phenomena in an unpublished manuscript, destined then to be
made public with the usual title “Perì fùseos”,
when, during his meditation on the “entities” that
“passed continuously” before his eyes, conceived the
extraordinary intuition of the doctrine of Being. Although the
results of his previous studies had been overtaken by the theory of
Being and therefore downgraded by Parmenides himself to the rank of
“opinions”, he wished to avoid that they, and with them
all his intellectual work of many years, get lost. He therefore,
having written a single work (being clearly impossible to write two
works containing opposing theories), has incorporated in it, in the
section “on opinions”, the conclusions he had reached in
the study of natural events, although he believed now that they were
not valid. So he – as he promises in the fragment 10 and 11 –
in the lost fragments has presumably described how he had previously
and erroneously interpreted the nature of the sky, of the
constellations and of the moon, the “works” of the sun
and moon, the origin of the earth, the sun and moon, of ether, stars,
the Milk Way, Olympus, as the sky supports the extremities of the
stars, in fragment 12 as the celestial spheres were born and the
origin of sexual attraction, in fragment 14-15 as the moon shines by
night but not its light but reflected from the sun, and in fragments
16-17-18 as the major part of the substance of the organs of the
human body, that governs and directs them, is the thought, as the
human embryo is formed and as it is placed in the uterus and what
happens if the seeds of the female and the male ones do not mix
properly. But then in fragment 19 he concludes by reiterating that
all these things happen “according to the opinion” and
not according to the truth, and …
...if you
want to know more, you can read the book (but it is written in
Italian)
