Talk:Parmenides
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
"the miderections errors"?? Omegatron 02:18, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] An excellent resource
There is an excellent resource that logically analyzes the Parmenidean argument of motion. It is found at http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm, and http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm2.htm. This is as much a note to myself to add it later as to see what anyone else thinks about putting an outside resource on this page.
[edit] Vacuums are not Voids
It ought to be clarified that the conception of void and vacuum are fundementally different in many respects. Whereas the void is an absolute, vacuums are not. Even the vacuum of space is not a true emptiness, nor does it connect itself with an ontological nothingness, which Parmenides was speaking of. (unsigned)
- In c.485 BC, Parmenides denies the existence of the void. In modern day terms, this would be equivalent to stating that vacuums are impossible to create or that they do not exist. (July version)
I agree, this is a pretty serious mistake. I am going to edit the vacuum comment out. If anyone wishes to revert, please do so but place a signed justification here. - Sam 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- In c.485 BC, Parmenides makes the ontological argumenent against nothingness, essentially denying the possible existence of a void. (Oct. version)
I think it would be best to find the original quote. If anyone can help in this matter please leave comment. --Sadi Carnot 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Time/Parmenides
I found a rather odd article at Time/Parmenides. I know nothing about Parmenides, so I don't know if it's appropriate for merger with this article. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the subject can determine that. android↔talk 18:48, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes
I added what I think are some important quotes, but I'm not sure I like the quotes section. Should not the quotes be integrated into the article to explain different parts of his philosophy? Uriah923 07:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I don't much like "quotes" sections, because there's no prose there, nothing encyclopedic about them. The most important should probably be integrated into the prose, and the rest to Wikiquote. Do you know about Wikiquote? I'd much rather have those quotes moved there (interestingly, I just checked and there's no Parmenides article there) and then link to wikiquote with one of our templates designed for that ({{wikiquotepar}}). Dmcdevit·t 20:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- I feel like adding a lot of " [citation needed] " in this article, since the origin of the quotes is a bit unclear.
[edit] Name of the Goddess?
I searched through the reference links and could not find any mention that the goddess Parmenides speaks with is Tartaros. Furthermore it appears, from reading the sources and the translation of the text, Parmenides has just 'left' the underworld as opposed to entering it. Could someone double check to see if I might be in error on this and, if at all possible, discover the appropriate goddess and cite it for us? I'll post anything I turn up here before attempting to eddit the artical directly since I am a novice at edditing in Wikipedia. --66.223.215.146 04:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like you're right - it is an unnamed goddess [[1]]. Maybe there is mention of something to do with the underworld, in which case scholars might have assumed it is Tartaros? FranksValli 08:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- The goddess is unnamed, but I doubt that Tartaros is a good appellation. Parmenides might just be using the underworld as another device to appeal to his listeners. In the Illiad, after all, the underworld is used as a plot device to give Odysseus knowledge. Another possibility is that Parmenides is in a place where opposites (like Night and Day) don't exist (as they don't exist in his conception of Truth). --Eienmaru 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- In Heidegger Parmenides lectures the Goddess is equalled with Truth (Aletheia). -- Aethralis 06:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Justification for the possibility of "Thinking of Nothing"
Could anyone provide philosophical justification for the following claim found in the argument? Perhaps making references to actual counter arguments by philosophers? Noting, also, that "void" generally is a relative nothingness, I.E. the "nothingness" of the air in an empty pot?
"One is able think of what is not, and with the ability to fathom a void, nothing--disproving the basis for which the theory based--the theory crumbles."
Considering it has been about two weeks now, I'm deleting that section on the foundation that it is completely unsubstantiated. If anyone would like to change it back with references, please discuss it here first.
[edit] Rationalist?
Re "the idea that the truth can not be known through sensual perception". In the novel Sophie's World (p30), Parmenides (and others who hold this idea) are described as a rationalists. But this article and Rationalism don't make this link.
Is he accurately described as a rationalist? --Singkong2005
I think the reason is that Rationalism is, technically, a philosophical system originating in the 17th century in Europe. Parmenides, Plato, and others surely held very similar views though, so we might add a section under rationalism for ancient Greek influences/proponents.
That being said, I've heard that Sophie's World is not necessarily that great of a source for philosophical ideas. So yeah, take what you learn from the book with a grain of salt.
"However, when one says that Parmenides "argued" something, one cannot think about "argue" in the modern sense." i disagree with this statement. although he revealed it in a goofy poem, his philosophy is obtained by rationale.
[edit] x
"However, when one says that Parmenides "argued" something, one cannot think about "argue" in the modern sense." i disagree with this statement. although he revealed it in a goofy poem, his philosophy is obtained by rationale.
I would agree. Shall we change it? - Anonymous
[edit] Peter Kingsley
I originally provided the link to Peter Kingsley, which turned out to be also the name of a character from some television programme. There is however a non-fictional Peter Kingsley (wikipedia doesn't have an article on him yet) who wrote "In The Dark Places of Wisdom" [2] and "Reality" [3], two excellent and groundbreaking books on Parmenides and his world. It is, I believe, not possible to make sense of Parmenides as a logician or philosopher, and any contemporary discussion of him must follow where Kingsley has led. I believe, for instance, that we should countenance the possibility that Parmenides did not only write a poem concerning a revelation received at an encounter with a goddess in the underworld, but that he actually did receive a revelation from a goddess in the underworld. Things start to make a great deal more sense once we drop the assumption that he was just being poetic.
[edit] critique and rebuttal
Parmenides argues that we cannot think about somthing that is not. But in fact we do it all the time. We can imagine a dragon, even though it does not exist. Parmenides' rebuttal would be that once something is thought of, it exists. There for we cannot think of what is not.
[edit] Parmenides and the Spherical Earth
An anon user added some information about Parmenides working on issues related to whether the earth was round, or flat - can anyone corroborate this? I have changed the edits into the proper format, and tagged it as dubious. - Sam 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
