An Analysis Of 'Nothing Comes From Nothing, Nothing Ever Could'

1011 Words 5 Pages
“Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could…” --The Sound of Music

Thus far into her song, Parmenides would have been in total agreement with Maria. The principle of “ex nihilo nihil” is quite important to his argument about the perfection of the world. It is impossible that the world could be created from nothing, since, according to Parmenides, “what is not” cannot exist. From this premise, he argues that since there is nothing that can be called what-is-not the world cannot have any deficiencies, since deficiency would imply the existence of “what-is-not. While this argument is logical, the next step he takes is less tenable. He argues next that human experience is completely wrong; that the world is changeless, timeless, single, and ungenerated; and that, perhaps as a consequence of this, it is a perfect sphere,
…show more content…
When Parmenides writes about “perfection,” he cannot mean that this is “the best of all possible worlds.” For one thing, it is the only possible world. Further, he is speaking more of form than of the content of the world. The content, he contends, is illusion. The perfection he speaks of, then, is and must be perfection of shape. It is “whole and changeless“ and “like the bulk of a ball well-rounded on every side, equally balanced in every direction from the center.” (KRS 299, p. 252) This ball has limits, established by Fate. What he means by “Fate” is not exactly certain. The word he uses, Moira, is a Homeric concept that implies future time, which is problematic considering his argument that time does not exist. However, it also conveys the idea of “what is allotted.” Whatever the precise meaning, the nebulous entity Fate gives limits to the world. “World” here must mean “everything that exists;” for if it is true that the world is one, then there cannot be anything outside

Related Documents