/lit/ - Literature

>>16907937
>unity
>individual parts

You just answered it.

>>16907945
I don’t understand how unity cannot be seen as individual parts making up a whole.

>>16907947
The whole is itself, and individual parts are not parts of a whole. Yes, they can be integrated into a whole, but then they are no longer individual parts.

>>16907947
It's like saying algebra and geometry are both math. They necessarily are and any differences between them that aren't relevant to math aren't math and subsequently aren't real as there only exists real.

>>16907937
In order to get 1, do you add the former onto the latter or the latter onto the former?

parts are only parts because of a whole, if we can distinguish parts we must remember the whole that enables us to recognize its parts. to have .5 at all requires the 1, unity, or whole.

I’m getting filtered by this book. Wish me luck, guys.

Considering how hard the filtering is, should I return to this book after furthering into philosophy or attempt to find my way through it now?

>>16908018
Parmenides is often considered the most challenging philosophical text of all time. Return to it, again and again.

>>16908040
Alright, I’m just going to finish off Plato with the Statesman and the Sophist and not look back until I finish the Bible.

>>16908006
>>16908018
>>16907937
I think this does a good explanation but it's a predicational monist interpretation

https://b-ok.lat/book/3337990/6bf4ea

>>16907937

The Dyad is inside the Monad like the reflection inside a spherical mirror, neither any one particular nor the many they constitute are parts of the Monad, and are totally superfluous thereto.

>>16907937
If Being can be divided it no longer is. Therefore, the Being is not made of parts.

>>16907957
So the individual once it has been defined as an essence correlated with the whole becomes not-individual. The reason we ourselves can entertain concepts as “individual” when we ourselves have never experienced an individual is a constant struggle between our own holistic understanding of the world and the worlds persistence in lacking holism as we understand it. We create tension that surrounds and distinguishes the individual because our innate holistic understanding is challenged against a nervous system that wants to persist in an environment where it can ensure it’s safe. The uncertainty distinguishes the individual as an assault on our expectation. Philosophy turns this in its head and makes us the individual. How we bring tension in the world distinguishes us as a threat to holism. Most advanced civilized social interactions are ones where participants are aware of a constant unknown but the participation of the individuals encourage and ensure each other as part of the same holistic understanding.
When you know you’re not understood because of tension holding you back but wish to break through and bring a radical new shift into the holism, you will be challenged by the standard social hierarchy to keep the old tension. This makes us believe in an individual but one that exists jumping from holism to holism

>>16909194

Seems arbitrary.
You could as well assume that division is applicable only to Being, and thus if you can no longer divide you've done dividing your Being into Nothing.

>>16910061
Being is
That which is cannot not be
Therefore being cannot not be

>>16910063

Conclusion follows, yes, but the two premises are, once again, arbitrary as fuck.

>>16910141
They aren't at all. Parmenides concludes the Being (that which exists) can't not exist by the principle of non contradiction (Being can't exist and not exist).

>>16907937
>Why does Parmenides assume that “unity” cannot be made of individual parts as a whole, such as 1=(.5+.5),

because

If things were parts of a greater whole (X); then, were this whole to exist anywhere, then it must necessarily exist in the parts of which it is made, because if it did not exist within its parts then it wouldn't exist anywhere else and would be non-existent. But if X is the whole, then it cannot exist within its parts, because the whole, by definition, cannot be contained within individual parts which are incomplete components of the whole; because then the same X would be both the complete whole and the incomplete non-whole, violating the law of non-contradiction.

Ergo the relation of parts to whole is false and everything is one undivided partless reality

>>16907937
Don't think in terms of "unity," but rather "one." The ambiguity of "oneness" is important in seeing why all these hypotheses have to be made.

For what it's worth, the second hypothesis operates by understanding "one" to be something like "one whole," i.e. with parts.