Parmenides: The Signs Of Truth

Superior Essays
Parmenides two principles state that “what-is” is and there cannot be a “what-is-not” because it is unthinkable, and therefore should be disregarded because it has no being. Parmenides backs up these principles, using very sound arguments; the three main ones being “what-is” is ungenerated, complete, and fixed. Several logical premises are further given to withhold these “signs of truth”. For instance, in Fragment 8, on the principle that “what-is” is the only thing that can be, “what-is” must be ungenerated. For if it was created, it would have spawned from something else, which does not make sense because only “what-is” is. If it came from itself, this would not hold, because as he proves later on in Fragment 8, “what-is” is not divisible …show more content…
He invalidates Parmenides’ concept of “what-is” and “what-is-not” mostly by disproving key factor of Parmenides’ “what-is”. For instance, once Gorgias argument is understand, “what-is” cannot be fixed. For if “what-is” is fixed, it is in a permanent state, therefore, it does not change. However, if it is not eternal, it will cease to exist. If it ceases to exist, it will change from existing to not existing. If it changes from existing to not existing, it is not what Parmenides defines as “what-is” because he says “what-is” is …show more content…
Gorgias is more tactful than Parmenides, for he takes a much more analytical approach to validating his claim, contemplating different possibilities for the nature of “what-is” or “what-is-not”. His arguments deteriorate Parmenides’ “what-is” using appropriate premises to come to well founded conclusions which are difficult to negate. His long winded diligence works in his favor. This, however, is not to say that Parmenides does not have well formulated arguments, for he does provide evidence for his claims. Nonetheless, they are ultimately flawed because of Gorgias’ claims and because of one crucial error in his logic. Parmenides says that “what-is” is not divisible, therefore there cannot be more than one “what-is”. This is problematic because it does not allow for plurality, which is evident that it

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    He presents his argument by mentioning how materialism is unverifiable; that we cannot verify there is an objective reality, pointless; there is no need to posit an external world, and incoherent; our senses cannot be external objects. Berkeley first point against an objective reality is to say that it is unverifiable. He argues…

    • 1136 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    1) The implied premise of the Paradox is that you either know what something is (x) is or you do not know what something (x) is. 2) The second premise follows from this, if you already know what x is, investigating x is unnecessary and inquiry into x is pointless. 3) Thirdly, if you don’t know what x is inquiry is impossible. The reasoning behind this premise is that since you cannot identify x when you see it, and thus would be incapable of investigating it since you would have no source to direct your investigation upon in the first place – and therefore inquiry is impossible. 4) The fourth concluding premise thus is that inquiry is pointless.…

    • 1565 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    He comes to this conclusion by making the claim that “what-is-not” cannot exist. The reason he says this is because it is contradictory to say that something that does not exist actually does exist. He continues on from that conclusion by saying that things cannot be created or destroyed either. This is due to the fact that the “what-is-not” does not exist. In order for something to be created or destroyed it must either come from or go to nothing, which is the “what-is-not” that Parmenides claims does not exist.…

    • 1603 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Cosmological Argument

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The final argument opposing Demea’s cosmological argument is Cleanthes saying that the parts not need represent its whole. This means that something may not appear similar to its earlier state and if every effect is explained correctly by its proceeding cause, then there need not to be a cause for the infinite chain of every effect. I do see the logic in Cleanthes objections and I do agree with his objections in regards to the argumentation of the cosmological argument. When…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In both situations, deterministic and indeterministic, free will plays no part and therefore anyone who commits an act should not be held morally responsible. This contradicts the common practice of holding people morally responsible for their actions. To combat this problem, Ayer bought into the idea of determinism, but he argued that determinism does not rule out free will. Accordingly, the question of free will in Ayers case is the following: where does free will enter the picture if all actions are invariably correlated to previous states of affairs or…

    • 915 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Examples Of Corrobortion

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Popper believed that no good reasons could be given for believing that past results is reliable for the future. The letter of recommendation is like confirmation because it says something about…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Given the fact that quiddity is non-existent if we assume that wujūd is also non-existent then subsistence of each one in the other would never happen. For subsistence of a thing in another thing requires that the locus must already exist. Thus it is false to believe that wujūd is a being of reason. Jāmī, following the School of Unity of Existence, believe that quiddity does not exist, rather it is only as an accident of…

    • 1000 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    14292768 Word Count: 1070 Error Theory Versus the World Among many relevant philosophical theories are objectivism, relativism, and nihilism. Unlike the other two theories, nihilism states that no moral claims are true. In support of this theory, nihilism strongly depends on error theory to back up its claims. Error theory states that moral claims are simply a means to describing the moral features of everything going on around the world; however, the theory also claims that there are no moral features in the world, which in turn means that no moral claims can be completely true. Error theory has very strong claims, a distinct difference than other theories, and is also a very legitimate theory with strong support behind it.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If we never can know what the universal end is or how to get there, then we can never progress towards it and therefore never achieve it. It is possible to argue that since we each strive to be the best version of ourselves, this can be defined as the universal end. I find this definition as incomplete and inconsistent because it is a sweepingly broad term when in reality each person has a different “best version” in mind. Even though this argument may make sense, Aquinas would probably have some obvious objections. First, Aquinas would argue that the universal end does not need to be achieved in order to strive towards it, or it can be achieved in some way that transcends the material world.…

    • 1321 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    An a posteriori justification would have to come from experience and lead to a conclusion. Reasons for believing the uniformity of nature would either have to be an inductive or deductive argument. Deductive reasoning comes up with a conclusion based on multiple ideas are assumed true. A deductive argument will not be a good reason because no experiences will have reasons to imply anything about the future. Inductive will not work because it would make the argument circular.…

    • 808 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays