[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.22453408 [View]
File: 46 KB, 656x492, WCCOR1_0H9KTVFC-kxPE-U3170150899817gr-656x492@Corriere-Web-Sezioni.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22453408

Since this thread has Severino in the OP I will post a quote of his on Parmenides, taken from his textbook on ancient philosophy. The translation is mine, with a few cuts here and there (nothing substantial, it's just to avoid excessive repetitions).

"Even by his ancient commentators, the thought of Parmenides was taken not only as a refutation of the existence of Becoming, but also as a refutation of the existence of Multiplicity, for the affirmation of said existence would entail the affirmation that "Non-Being is", which denies the Truth for which Non-Being is not. Indeed only Being is, since Non-Being is not. And if only Being is, then every determinate thing, exactly because it is determinated in a certain way (as color, form, sound, tree, star, animal, house, water, air, fire, earth, and so on) is not Being, which is to say that it is non-Being.
For example, a tree is not Being; which is to say, "a tree" does not mean "Being" (or in other terms, what is referenced with the expression "a tree" is not what is referenced by the expression "Being").
And a tree is not a part of Being either, since either 1) this part is identical to Being – and then it would not be a part, but Being itself – or 2) it is different from Being (but this would mean that *it is not* Being). Of all the things that constitute the world, the Truth shows that, since they are not identical to Being (nor in existence nor in meaning), they must be non-Being.
Then, if one affirms that a determinate thing is (e.g. if one affirms that a tree is), then he will affirm that Non-Being is, which is to say that Non-Being is Being.
Therefore the existence (the being) of Multiplicity and of the Becoming must be denied, for they entail the identification of Being and Nothing. If one posits that Being is not Nothing, one must admit that the many things and their becoming is nothing. Therefore Being, which is the whole, is not only eternal and unchanging, but is also not composed of parts.
Therefore the belief that Multiplicity exists is the content of the opinion of the mortals."

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]