Parmenides Argument For All Things Being Continuously One Philosophy Essay

Parmenides Argument For All Things Being Continuously One school of thought EssayDescribe and assess Parmenides argument for all things universe unceasingly champion. Parmenides argument for things organism continuously single begins with the rooms of inquiry into the human beings of the terra firma. He shows in that location to be the fashion of lawfulness and the Way of opinion. His reproach in his poem entitled On genius is that the dependable spirit of the cosmos of the dry land poopnot be kn take in by the federal agency of opinion. The Way of opinion being the perception of the world as one would assimilate it, not the reality of the world as these observations or perceptions only fix truth to the appearance of the world. Appearance can be illusory. The way of truth on the other hand gives the follower of this route a true idea of the reality of the world as it is based on reasonable deduction and it is from this that Parmenides reasons that all things are continuously one.In On Nature Parmenides presents the possible way of truth in two ways with which one could deduce the world, one way being the way of it is the other being it is not. It in these propostions can be thought of as anything one is cerebration skillful about, the is to be thought of as last. Accepting that is means exist Parmenides comes to the goal that computeing it is not is impossible. His argument is as follows.Anything that one can think of is something that can existFor something to be it is not cannot exist (something cannot be nada) therefrom if thinking about something that cannot exist is impossible, one cannot think about something that is postal code (that is not)Armed with this ending, Parmenides then follows the way of truth that he has presented. In the world there is only it is as it is not is impossible and to think of the latter(prenominal) is impossible. To just empirically observe the world is not to shaft the reality of the world, such em pirical observations would have you believe that the world is in uninterrupted motion going through the constant changes of generation and goal as a result of such cause. An warning being Heraclitus statement that one cannot step into the same river twice as the waters are forever and a day moving and changing. In parliamentary procedure these changes happen there must be quadriceps femoris in the world in which all this movement can take place. This space to be thought of as nothing or nothingness, is impossible by following the route of the way of truth. Thinking of nothing is thinking it is not and therefore impossible. There is no nothing, or what Democritus and Leucippus named a void, in which movement is possible. Without a void, Parmenides states that everything must be unchanging. Heraclitus example of the river is to Parmenides the way of opinion the appearance of the world and not the reality or truth. Generation and destruction also require nothing, generation tha t something comes from nothing and destruction that something will turn into nothing. Both are impossible to Parmenides and what he concludes from the impossibleness of nothing is that all that what is is eternal. As well as eternal the world must be infinitely continuous as if it did end at some point then what would be beyond that point? Parmenides bank say nothing. Continuous with no spaces of nothingness the world is, in Parmenides own words from On Nature, full of what is.Let us look at Parmenides argument that concludes that thinking of something that is not is impossible. The first premise that anything we think about can exist seems valid. How would it seem possible to think of something that doesnt exist? Hume named thoughts ideas and effectual that all ideas can be broken down to simple ideas strengthened up in different ways, where these ideas came from was an impression of something perceived in the world. For example the idea of a spunky horse is the amalgamation of the impressions of the colour blue and the animal named a horse. What about imaginative thoughts though? Imagine witching(prenominal), the chafe Potter books are testament to the human imagination but magic doesnt exist. Hume would defend his argument by saying magic was the amalgamation of much simple ideas and mixed into something not possible, but Parmenides argument seems not appropriate for one to think of magic, but by typing these words or reading or them one has already thought of it. Also in this premise how does Parmenides justify the existence of anything? To justify any existence would be to justify through the way of opinion, but he has said himself in On Nature that this is not the route to seek truth, in order seek truth one must follow the course started by the first premise in question. It seems well-nigh contradictory of Parmenides to justify the way of truth by the way of opinion when the way of truth is interpreted by Parmenides to know the reality of the wo rld as oppose to just the appearance granted by the way of opinion.The second premise, something cannot be nothing, seems sound, something thence cannot be nothing. But let us in assessment get the argument that Parmenides gives for the impossibility of it is not and see what we can make of this adaptation of nothing. Having accepted this must we accept the following conclusions that run from this argument, in entirety that the universe/world is continuously one? Accepting the conclusions depends upon the role play by nothing. Here in Parmenides argument the interpretation of nothing would be that nothingness is the necessary ingredient of change the other being movement. proceeding would be impossible if there was no place to move and a place to move must be unoccupied place that being nothing. Does movement require nothing? Could there not be other form of vacantness that isnt necessarily nothing but allows movement? Aristotle replaces nothingness with space, space being a receptacle in which objects are placed in. By doing this Aristotle could be seen as accepting the argument of Parmenides that there is no nothing but not accepting what follows logically for Parmenides that everything is continuously one. Aristotles space is part of Parmenides what is and allows for the movement and all that follows it to happen allowing Heraclitus to step in different rivers forever.Parmenides conclusion that there is no movement, no change, no destruction, no generation etc. almost seems counter intuitive. It seems that in the world there is movement and change. Parmenides said that his perceptivity is an insight derived through logic his central tenant being the impossibility of nothing, due to the contradiction pointed out that for nothing to exist something would have to be nothing. But do his conclusions that the world is without start or end, and that it is infinite need a few questions of logic themselves? If something never started how then can it exist? Everything it seems requires a start. The infinite has it self some strange paradoxes, one in mathematics being that there are as many charge numbers in infinite as there are unite even and odd numbers an infinite amount. Parmenides begins On Nature attempting to know the world without nothing something that he sees as illogical. Discarding nothing his logical conclusion leaves him with a set of descriptions of the world that seem slightly illogical in themselves.