Parmenides Argument Against Change
Michael Cohen
Philosophy I: Ancient
TA - Lucas Ballestín
4.22.18
Parmenides Argument Against Change In Parmenides’ only known work, On Nature, he professes that change is not possible. He views the world as being an unchangeable, ever-present, constant form. A thing cannot come into being, nor can it end, a thing ‘is’. The ‘is’ represents the way of truth for Parmenides and is the antithesis of the ‘not’. Parmenides’ argument asks if a thing comes to be it therefore must come from a state of not being, i.e. a void. It is difficult to ascertain where a state of nothingness exists, he states “For what birth could you seek for it? How and from what did it grow” (F8, 6-7) According to Parmenides, existing cosmic space is not unlimited but is an enormous sphere. It is entirely filled by Being. Being is the only everlasting material, permeating all things, existent in people, it makes up the cosmic world and is observed by …show more content…
There is no non-Being to accompany the Being which must be present at all times. If human senses were true and birth or growth have occurred it would also mean that for something to be born it would have had to be at some point been not born, for something to have grown it must have at some point been not grown. Being is always present, so birth or growth is merely a sensory allusion because no actually change or generation can come from Being. Humans can think and record change based off there sense but there is no real change. With Parmenides’ understanding of the universe the non-Being is an impossible and unthinkable substance, humans must concentrate on the Being. He reaffirms this in fragment 3 in regards to ‘the way that it is not’, “This, as I show you, is an altogether misguided route. For you may not know what-is-not — there is no end to it” (F3, 6-7). Humans will never see real change because real change can only happen if humans knew
Philosophy I: Ancient
TA - Lucas Ballestín
4.22.18
Parmenides Argument Against Change In Parmenides’ only known work, On Nature, he professes that change is not possible. He views the world as being an unchangeable, ever-present, constant form. A thing cannot come into being, nor can it end, a thing ‘is’. The ‘is’ represents the way of truth for Parmenides and is the antithesis of the ‘not’. Parmenides’ argument asks if a thing comes to be it therefore must come from a state of not being, i.e. a void. It is difficult to ascertain where a state of nothingness exists, he states “For what birth could you seek for it? How and from what did it grow” (F8, 6-7) According to Parmenides, existing cosmic space is not unlimited but is an enormous sphere. It is entirely filled by Being. Being is the only everlasting material, permeating all things, existent in people, it makes up the cosmic world and is observed by …show more content…
There is no non-Being to accompany the Being which must be present at all times. If human senses were true and birth or growth have occurred it would also mean that for something to be born it would have had to be at some point been not born, for something to have grown it must have at some point been not grown. Being is always present, so birth or growth is merely a sensory allusion because no actually change or generation can come from Being. Humans can think and record change based off there sense but there is no real change. With Parmenides’ understanding of the universe the non-Being is an impossible and unthinkable substance, humans must concentrate on the Being. He reaffirms this in fragment 3 in regards to ‘the way that it is not’, “This, as I show you, is an altogether misguided route. For you may not know what-is-not — there is no end to it” (F3, 6-7). Humans will never see real change because real change can only happen if humans knew