Parmenides Essay, Research Paper

Parmenides Parmenides made his mark on the philosophical world by use of deductivethinking in order to interpret the process of change apart from the biases of humanperceptions. He found change to be logically contradictory with itself not to mentionunable to be comprehended in it’s genuine form. Therefore, he concludes, change can notoccur and is only an illusion. How does one come to the conclusion that change is nonexistent? First certainground rules or assumptions must be set to understand this concept. One of such rulesstates that all things are unified under a lowest common denominator, an unknownelement of which all things consist. This idea was not exclusive to Parmenides andseveral other philosophers also shared similar views on this subject, however not to thesame effect as his own. Next it must be understood that existing is absolute or not at all. What is, is and what is not, is not. It is quite impossible to think of what is not for if thenonexistent could be thought of, then it consequently becomes that which is. In a poemof Parmenides’ entitled “On Nature”, he quotes”for the same thing can be thought and canexist.” and “That which is there to be spoken and thought of must be. For it is possiblefor it to be, but not possible for nothing to be.”. With the core logic of Parmenides argument explained, the concept of change cannow be analyzed against it. For an entity to change from non-being to being is that of animpossible task, since as soon as the non-being of which it came is considered, it is nolonger non-being, and thus the entity is never in a state switching between being and non-being. It simply just is. Change can not then occur there because if an item comes from

being then it already is and it can’t be thought about if it comes out of non-being withoutit then also coming out of being. To further use the process of deductive thinking against the world of senses,Parmenides believed that one must make certain distinctions between appearances andreality. This is because testimony of the human senses can be so easily biased, steeped inopinion, and far from the truth. Our perceptions of the world tell us that change occurs ona daily basis. Our eyes receive visual information and the brain then interprets thisinformation as truth, since it can be seen. Reality is truth and is achieved only when themind is allowed to think without the interferences of our perceptions. Then concludingthese distinctions, he claims change is an illusion that stems from one confusing theiropinions and what they think is truth with reality. To say change does not exist accompanies with it several other implications ofwhich Parmenides reasoned; reality just is. Without the possibility of change, it isuncreated and indestructible. It can not be divided since it has no beginning. Acontinuous yet finite spherical mass, that contains no empty space, and sits motionlesswhile beyond it exists nothing. Hours have I spent trying to fully grasp this concept of a finite reality when somany things appear as infinite. It is beyond me to find any substantial flaw in Parmenideslogic. It seems perhaps that he is caught up in the paradox of the words he uses and asany mystic will tell you, some things go beyond the limits of what language can describe. However, once again, that is of course subject to the biases of the senses. So I am leftwithout any real opinion on this subject. Fin.