/lit/ - Literature

No.

>>20812678
Too complex for 4chan.

>>20812678
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm2.htm
https://www.austincc.edu/adechene/Parmenides%20lecture%20notes.pdf
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/271970
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/26268/Maki_washington_0250O_13131.pdf;jsessionid=18ED7038AF730832C6D55540856CA025?sequence=1

>>20812678
>>20813221
I also recommend MDR's "The Parmenidean Ascent". You can get it on libgen.

>>20812700
>>20812721
>>20812841
Faggots. I see Hegel threads all the time, and his shit is far more obscure than Eleatic philosophy.

Read the pre-Aristotle chapters in Windelband's history of Greek philosophy. Running through the development of Greek philosophy is the basic tendency to create a hierarchical causal scheme that can explain the world's more concrete and multifarious features in terms of progressively more abstract and unitary features. This first takes on mythic forms, then progresses to unitary but physical forms, then slowly (very slowly, more slowly than you'd think, as many of the seemingly "abstract" first principles of the Greeks were still conceived as having a fundamental substantial or material being) progresses to true abstraction, ultimately in Plato's adapted Pythagoreanism (NOT in the Pythagoreans, who only had a shadowy, as it were accidental notion of the abstract substantiality of numbers). The Eleatics are in a way a high point of this development and a stalling point, as they represent the one-sided development of the abstract form of Being, while the Ionians represent the one-sided development of the concept of Becoming. The necessary result of the whole development is the abstract development of the total conception of the conflict between Being and Becoming, but this process exhausts the Greek mind and causes a collapse into "false syntheses," compromise systems that try to reconcile the two while really recapitulating their antitheses in horrible ways that stick in the Greek craw (for example: ancient atomism is NOT a primitive "materialism" in our modern sense, but a compromise between giving pure unitary Being to Parmenidean monads, atoms, while also making them multiple and necessarily infinitely plural in form, to explain Becoming).

The same processes take place in India, where they manifest in the carvakas, which were almost certainly not unitary schools but overlapping and derivative schools of thought based on fundamentally the same one-sided developments of necessary but incomplete abstract moments of the Being-Becoming antinomy in Greek thought.

Eleatic "logic" or dialectic is really very similar to several schools of Indian dialectic that draw attention to the insufficiency of any and all Becoming to render a consistent account (logos) of the nature of Being, thus drawing attention to the need to transcend logoi in general and grasp the whole in its totality, again probably by various and overlapping mystical means, including demi-mystical means like Aristotle's participative "contemplation" of the whole through well-formed knowledge of it.

So Zeno is not trying to prove anything in particular. He's trying to show you how proving shit doesn't work and the bottom ultimately falls out of all proofs until only the One is visible. What that visibility meant almost certainly varied by school and sage etc.

>>20813285
>logos
>cause effect
>entelechy
>aporetics

I wield my Chorae and hurl it against your accursed sorcery. I cast Cirroi Loom and Noviratic Spike and Mathesis Pin. You are transformed into a human pillar of salt.

>>20813285
>logos
>cause effect
>entelechy
>aporetics

I wield my Chorae and hurl it against your accursed sorcery. You cast Cirroi Loom and Noviratic Spike and Mathesis Pin. But you are still transformed into a human pillar of salt.

>>20812678
Everything is One, everything is always the same, nothing changes, nothing moves, everything is pure being, there is no becoming. change, becoming, and motion are all delusions because pure reason tells you that everything must be One.

>>20813285
How do the Greeks try to understand Nothingness, absence, possibility, etc?

>>20813285
if someone castrates the archigallus and performs a phyrigian dance before the shrine of cybeles, can they make all this go away

>>20813221
Missing the best essay on Parmenides.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/metis_1105-2201_1998_num_13_1_1082g2h80g

>>20813285
So this is what R Scott Bakker is trying to say, I see it now

>>20813451
they look at what the European Union did to their economy

>>20813460
Anon, the link doesn't work :(

>>20813451
they understand it variously as non-being or void

plato says non-being is matter
aristotle says non-being is potential, which is actualized when it is given shape
plotinus says that non-being, matter, and potential are all the same thing, which are actualized by the platonic forms
parmenides says there is no such thing as non-being because the only judgement you can make is "that it is"
democritus & epicurus say void is exists in between matter and allows the atoms to move. they say that atoms and void are the only things to exist. without void, the atoms wouldn't be able to move. thus void and atom aren't metaphysical things like substance and nothingness, they are physical things and only physical things exist

I just read the wikipedia. It is not really that difficult
>The main doctrines of the Eleatics were evolved in opposition to the theories of the early physicalist philosophers, who explained all existence in terms of primary matter, and to the theory of Heraclitus, which declared that all existence may be summed up as perpetual change. The Eleatics maintained that the true explanation of things lies in the conception of a universal unity of being.[2] According to their doctrine, the senses cannot cognize this unity, because their reports are inconsistent; it is by thought alone that we can pass beyond the false appearances of sense and arrive at the knowledge of being, at the fundamental truth that the "All is One". Furthermore, there can be no creation, for being cannot come from non-being, because a thing cannot arise from that which is different from it. They argued that errors on this point commonly arise from the ambiguous use of the verb to be, which may imply actual physical existence or be merely the linguistic copula which connects subject and predicate.[3]

>>20813479
Hmm, weird, looks like some extra figures got added to the end of the link. Try now.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/metis_1105-2201_1998_num_13_1_1082

>>20813494
It works now

All is one

>>20813494
this filtered me. what the hell is this nigga on

It is
I think you should be able to take it from there

>>20813440
kek

Very happy to see this thread. Eleatic philosophy represents an absolute high point in metaphysics.

https://antiquitystudio.com/AntiquityStudio.html

Here's my eleatic work, OP.

>>20812678
That everything "is". Simple as, but somehow other people fail to understand this. Non-Eleatic attempts at philosophy are incoherent trash; the Path of Truth leads to Elea.
>>20813259
No it's typical academia bullshit, total waste of your time. These people are TERRIBLE at writing, have no respect for your time, and honestly don't have much to offer.

>>20814516
For those that do want a book recommendation specifically for Parmenides, I always say the Phoenix Pre-Socratics title on him is great, really like John Gallops succinct and clear essay (at least until the last chapter or so when I think it goes off the rails, but whatever). Solid little book for anyone who wants an intro to Parmenides, but doesn't want a 400 page pile of bullshit about 18-20th century germs or whoever academics think they're responding to.

>>20814184
The most autistically attentive focus on philological details and attending to why Parmenides wrote a Homeric poem. Go slow, it makes wicked sense.

>>20814516
Do you think Chris Langan follows Eleatic philosophy?

>>20814900
Wow. What did I think of it?

>>20813481
>parmenides says there is no such thing as non-being because the only judgement you can make is "that it is"
Holy based, "that it is" = "thou art that?"

>>20815171
No idea who that is, but I hope so. Everyone should follow Eleatic philosophy, because Eleatic philosophy offers us the only coherent metaphysical account of reality. The post-socratics were a mistake.

>>20816701
Do Christianity and Eleatic philosophy work together?

>>20816852
No, unless the Christians are willing to limit/downgrade their god and give up things like ontological creation and ideas of "grounding". There are a lot of denominations, so maybe some of theme do this, but in my experience Christians do not follow Eleatic philosophy and therefore their worldview is ultimately incoherent.

>>20812678
Position and time are eigenstates of the irreducible representations of the Poincare group. Since groups describe symmetries aka redundancies, spacetime is our way of coping with being a local observer and is not something intrinsic to reality.

>>20816701
Check him out. There are timestamps in the comments. Is he retroactively refuted?
https://youtu.be/N-bRM1kYuNA

>>20816869
What is the Eleatic opinion on God. Does he exist? Does he have thoughts, desires, will or action?

>>20812678
My dick is too small i cant

>>20816875
Is logical causation also cope? Why is it so powerful?

>>20816916
Yes and yes he does, that is irrelevant to Parmenides, his whole philosophy of "what is is" could be boiled down to "God is - He must exist", with the only corollary being also that nothing exists other than God

>>20816933
What does this have to do with my post?

>>20816978
I don't see why it's incompatible. Creation can be considered within God, our direct will isn't omnipotent so we're limited despite technically being God. But in the context of organized religion this gets into the territory of how to frame things publicly so they're not misunderstood because saying "you are God" can easily lead people to misunderstanding.

>>20817053
Not much but I hoped you might have insights since you got that far. Temporal causation is a kind of perspective so I wonder if logical causation is too.

>>20817058
It is not incompatible at all, I myself am a very dedicated theophile and theologian wannabe and I started with Parmenides' poem

>>20817078
How do i walk on water?

>>20817136
You overcome death by realizing you are God and the ego is an illusion.

https://youtu.be/fEBSx075AKs

>>20817258
Midwit take. Try again.

>>20816916
God is completely irrelevant to Eleatic metaphysics. In Parmenides we encounter gods as characters in the poem and as representations of certain forces or principles. In Melissus, there is no mention of gods. Zeno and Diodorus Cronus are harder to piece together, but again the idea of god(s) is irrelevant to their metaphysics.

If there's a coherent thing you can identify and you want to label it "god", then yes it does exist. Every bit of meaning or significance has ontological weight or presence, hence it all exists. But if you mean "god" as some sort of creator or grounding of reality, then that's all incoherent gibberish and incompatible with Eleatic philosophy (as I interpret it, you could follow neoplatonists like Simplicius and interpret Parmenides as a dualist or some other absurd nonsense, of course).

>>20816134
No, he is making a statement about Being, not consciousness

>>20817258
If that were true then you wouldn’t have to realize anything to become immortal, you already are

>>20817472
>>20816134
In fact, based in what Plato says about Parmenides and the One, consciousness itself is in the same category as motion. It is an illusion

>>20817136
I'm the actual guy you are asking, the answer obviously being you don't walk there is no distance there is no time

>>20817482
But the thing "you" identify as is not. All you have to do to get eternal life is accept the gift.
We can think of "you" as having three elements, the eternal you, the flesh and the spirit that moves you. Only the flesh dies so "you" remain eternal in the heavens and the spirit that moves you remains on earth to move others.

>>20812678
I heard that Melissus BTFO'd Aristotle before he was born. How?

>>20817872
Generally speaking, the Eleatics btfo'd every account of "change" or "motion" that involves ontological creation or destruction. Aristotle's account of reality was therefore BTFO'd by the Eleatics in general, but Melissus is special because he makes a few points explicit.

For example, see these two quotes from Melissus:

"But neither is it possible for it to be rearranged. For the order which was previous is not perishing, nor is one that is not coming to be. And since nothing is either being added, or being destroyed, or being altered, how could anything that is be rearranged? For if it became different in any respect, it would then be rearranged."

This statement is the death of potential/actual models, along with any other model that tries to rearrange some underlying substance(s).

Also another example,

"Therefore, if there were many, they ought to be of just the same sort as the One is."

This statement shows that the narrow must obey the broad; Being/the One is the ultimate context, and everything must comply with its nature or else be incoherent. A chair, motion, philosophy, whatever; if it is, then it is the same sort as the One, it will kneel and thereby cohere or else be incoherent gibberish.

Melissus really grated Plato and Aristotle's gears, he completely fucked them and rendered their philosophy dead on arrival. Plato's tactic was to ignore Melissus by saying he was not as smart as Parmenides, and then turning Parmenides into a puppet and pretending he was a Platonist. Hence, grand deceiver. Aristotle's tactic was to seethe and call Melissus names, throwing up some strawmen, and at times pretending that the Eleatics could be refuted but they're not worth it. Embarrassing stuff from the Post-Socratics, desu.

>>20817943
>"But neither is it possible for it to be rearranged. For the order which was previous is not perishing, nor is one that is not coming to be. And since nothing is either being added, or being destroyed, or being altered, how could anything that is be rearranged? For if it became different in any respect, it would then be rearranged."
... n-n-no ... it wasn't p-p-possible for you to c-c-uck me... motion isn't r-r-real, you didn't re-arrange my w-w-wife's guts...

>>20818000
Behold, the Athenoid is immunized against all insults. One may call him a sophist, a halfwit, a pederast, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But point out that his ideas of "motion" and "change" are incoherent gibberish and you'll see how he recoils, how injured he is, how his entire philosophy shrinks to insignificance: i've been found out.

>>20818374
You didn't even check my trips, which appropriately consisted of zeros, the representation of non-being. Eleatics eternally BTFO'd, cucked, dilating, malding (they coped by saying their scalp never changed), etc.

>>20818513
you will never be a real philosopher

>>20812678
All things are one; thought is being.

>>20813268
>I see Hegel threads all the time, and his shit is far more obscure than Eleatic philosophy.
Lolno.

Imagine trying to figure out Hegel's philosophy from fragments amounting to 1/5th of the Phenomenology of Spirit, some catty offhand remarks by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche in their preserved works, and a "Philosophers for Kids" book that contains a summary biography from like 600 years later. That's pretty much what we have to go off when piecing together Parmenides' philosophy.

>>20818523
you will always change

>>20818806
Based

>>20818806
Yes, I will always be everything I am, secure and complete. The issue here isn't that I deny common experience, rather the problem is that presentist models of reality are incoherent gibberish.

If you want a coherent account of our experience, including what you reference with the word change, then look to an eternalist model. That is the only sort of account that abides by the nature of the Whole. That is the point of the second quote I provided from Melissus; if there are many then they are as the One, the content will conform with the context. The path of truth requires this, and upon examination you'll see it is the only true path.

>>20818892
you're gay

>>20818961
tell me more about the 100% straight socrates and his coterie of philosophy-boys. Groomer.

>>20818992
What is your evidence for Parmenides being straight?

>>20819018
What's your argument against the FACT that Athenian philosophy is the product of a homeless autist grooming a bunch of young boys?

The life of philosophy was an immaculate birth and beautiful childhood in the Hellenic Colonies, followed by its brutal rape and murder after the Athenoids got their hands on it.

>>20819035
Dodging the question.

>>20817696
Extreme heresy lmao.
Change in perception about your ego/self wont grant you eternal life retard.
The crown of eternal life is granted by the Holy Spirit. And it descends unto those who have faith and believe Jesus is the Christ. And once it does you WILL know. No need to watch the retarded yt vids some shills spam.

>>20817621
What?
So how did Christ and Peter walk on water

>>20818892
Melissus is already in conflict with Parmenides and Zeno by allowing a Many, whereas the latter two deny Many tout court.

You keep calling Plato a Grand Deceiver and, in past threads, evade any arguments over your understanding of the dialogues by pointing to your page and YT vids, which don't address them.

>>20820049
I would welcome a different perspective if you could actually present one but you're too retarded. You're unable to say anything on the subject or likely any subject, you don't know anything but subversive brainwashing.

>>20820866
Midwits cant cope with the fact that the truth is available to the masses.

>>20820574
I deny that Melissus, Parmenides, and Zeno are incompatible regarding the idea of distinction/many. I believe that the notion of many tackled by Parmenides and his friend is also tackled by Melissus. The notion that Melissus would allow is distinct from that and, in my opinion, it is obvious Parmenides and Zeno would agree with him because otherwise how are they writing works and telling stories about various characters. The point is that Being flows on all sides, it is an omnipresent whole.

As for whether I have avoided arguments, I don't think so. I believe I responded to whatever you have to say, but honestly I don't recall all the details of every thread I've posted in. Maybe I missed something or pleaded off by saying I would rereview a dialogue that you raised and that I haven't read in a while.

Plato, Aristotle, and others are deeply confused about metaphysics and as a result their philosophies boil down to incoherent gibberish. That much is plain. As to whether you think I am too hard on Plato for calling him a grand deceiver, this is the internet so get over it. I think Plato and Aristotle wrote some good ethical and political works, they just lacked the capacity to engage in metaphysics. Platonists and others can be rude to the Eleatics, so sometimes I kick sand on them. If i met Plato in real life I would invite him in for tea and tell him he's wrong about metaphysics but otherwise be fairly polite. After a long conversation he would probably agree with all my assertions and offer a sincere apology to the Eleatic Sages and convert immediately to true philosophy.

>>20821869
>If i met Plato in real life I would invite him in for tea and tell him he's wrong about metaphysics but otherwise be fairly polite. fter a long conversation he would probably agree with all my assertions and offer a sincere apology to the Eleatic Sages and convert immediately to true philosophy.
I think you underestimate how much of Plato is the result of repeated encounters with the Eleatics. The immature Plato was Heraclitean, only to be left dead in his tracks by the Eleatics. What you see with Plato now is the furthest towards the Eleatics you will get. While I see the appeal of Eleatic philosophy, in that it makes us truly appreciate the vastness of infinity as much as we could ever hope to grasp, I don't understand how one can be a diehard Eleatic. Zeno's paradoxes might be intractable, yet, as Hegel notes, the arrow continues to fly.

When will society hold women accountable for their actions?

>>20821843
No one is stopping you from studying these things but yourself, and each one of the many that make up the "masses" themselves. In fact, nothing stops you from actually getting there on your own, Buddha needed no books and he rejected his own masters. Intuition that is to say the Nous is literally free of charge and unbound

bump

>>20821966
bump

>>20812678
Being is le good
Non-being is le bad

>>20821966
>Zeno's paradoxes might be intractable
They're not, read Aristotle. At least not with respect to physical motion.

>>20817943
>This statement is the death of potential/actual models, along with any other model that tries to rearrange some underlying substance(s).
Ask me how I know you haven't read Aristotle.

>>20824011
What does he say?

>>20824038
Basically that, at least in the boat or line paradox, it is a conceptual confusion of the boat intersecting with infinite points at each single point along its trajectory (not incompatible with sense data of movement), with having to traverse an infinite distance in finite time (incompatible with sensible movement). If you can wait a few hours I will quote the passages and explanations from Physics.

>>20824107
I'm willing to wait anon.

>>20823548
shit ive had a few and am finishing up work, but bump because I do want to respond and I love that we have an Eleatic thread.

Also because these Aristotelian brainlets showed up.

>>20823548
Oky fuck it

I appreciate that Plato interacted with Eleatics. that is crucial to my conclusion that (A) Eleatics were active in significant numbers in the 4th century and (B) they discussed negation and explicitly understood that “is not” must be defined as “is other than”.

If you cannot understand why someone would be a diehard Eleatic, read my work and tell me why it disappoints or otherwise fails to convince you. Regarding Zeno and Hegel, (A) note you admit it “might be intractable", and (B) Zeno does not deny the arrow flies. Point (B) is best understood after reading Sextus Empiricus’ comments on Diodorus Cronus, which I find extremely valuable.

Zeno and Diodorus AGREE there is motion. Rather, they deny that things are MOVING. The Eleatic project reveals that there is something fatally wrong with the common ideas of “change” and “motion”, which means that whatever we say following form there is fatally flawed.

To save you reading my work or that of Sextus Empiricus: Things move but they are not moving. It is an eternalist mode. The chronology is complete, the arrow was fired and hits the target, it moves, BUT it is not in some weird presentist model of "moving". Pull up your trousers and get with the program.

>>20824011
Yeah I did cunt, did you? Potential/actual systems ultimately involve a “nothing”, regardless of how long it takes to drag it out of you. If you want the height of discussion on motion, check out Zeno & Cronus you gibbering fool.

>>20824011
Ask me how I know you didn’t understand the Eleatics, you preening Peripatetic wanker. Do like your master did and die from a tummy ache, soft cunt.

>>20824107
You don’t even have a coherent understanding of the term “infinite”. Not surprising, given that your master similarly failed to grasp the truth.

Your legacy is one of incoherence and failure. Cope seethe and mald. I will reveal the future: an ELEATIC Chad from GREATER Greece rams his dori up your behind.

>>20813448
Nothing ever happens.

>>20824738
>
To save you reading my work or that of Sextus Empiricus: Things move but they are not moving. It is an eternalist mode. The chronology is complete, the arrow was fired and hits the target, it moves, BUT it is not in some weird presentist model of "moving". Pull up your trousers and get with the program.
Okay that's clear but also very, very retarded.

>>20824738
Pyrrhonism is sophistry and eleaticism has been a dead project for 2300 years for a reason.

>>20825193
Careful or you'll get the drunk riled up again.

>>20824738
>Zeno and Diodorus AGREE there is motion. Rather, they deny that things are MOVING. The Eleatic project reveals that there is something fatally wrong with the common ideas of “change” and “motion”, which means that whatever we say following form there is fatally flawed.
>To save you reading my work or that of Sextus Empiricus: Things move but they are not moving. It is an eternalist mode. The chronology is complete, the arrow was fired and hits the target, it moves, BUT it is not in some weird presentist model of "moving". Pull up your trousers and get with the program.
that sounds utterly retarded unless it's supposed to be a critique of language or a proto-Kantian critique.

>>20825193
I'm not saying anything about Pyrrhonism, I'm only citing Sextus Empiricus because he is the best source on Diodorus Cronus for the points I was making. Diodorus' work doesn't exist as an easily locatable body of fragments like Parmenides, If you know of an easily obtainable book that puts all of the testimonia of Diodorus in one place and discusses them, I'd definitely like to read it.

>>20826454
Calling it retarded doesn't change the fact that Eleatic philosophy provides the only coherent metaphysics, and insofar as you depart from that your position devolves into incoherent gibberish.

The arrow is in all those locations Zeno mentions, and only when taken as a whole can it make sense. Being is complete, omnipresent, and inviolate.

>>20827386
The present snapshot is required to make a continuous whole. Eleatic metaphysics is simply incomplete.

>>20827477
By the time you call it "present", you are somewhere else looking at it. Fact is you are diffuse throughout the timeline.

If you want to understand temporal reality, you need to look at block world models. If you think there is a snapshot called "the present", and that it somehow gets "destroyed to nothing" and a new snapshot (that is not) comes into being (is), and somehow they're connected and continuous, I mean why am I even trying to type out this model, Presentism is such an incoherent joke. Go try to posit something yourself, it's gibberish and I'll tell you why once I see your particular take on it. Eleatics were right and you need to do better.

>>20827496
In the words of the wise Charles Sanders Peirce, you are denying the aspect of firstness while privileging the aspect of thirdness in your account of phenomenology. You have an incomplete and thus an incoherent account of temporal reality. I'm not a presentist, I'm just somebody who understands that you can't have a continuum without the infinitesimal points. Even Peirce admits that firstness, the aspect of phenomenology in which the suchness of qualia emerges, is ultimately indescribable but is necessarily true for there to be a secondness (reaction) and ultimately a thirdness (habit, continuum, meaning, etc.).

>>20827528
No idea who that is, but it sounds like he was wrong. You don't actually critique the Eleatic position in any meaningful sense, and I have no idea of the specifics of whatever model of change you have in mind.

Regarding the one line that seems vaguely relevant, if in dire need of fleshing out, it is irrelevant if "you can't have a continuum without the infinitesimal points." First, you are going to get into trouble when you try defining "infinitesimal". Second, whether a model of change posits that we can break everything in half, or it posits some smallest unbreakable unit, this is ultimately irrelevant because we know that the overall process must be Whole and that creation/destruction are both impossible. You have no way of getting anything ontologically new, and infinity will ultimately be redefined as complete and not exhausted by any particular instance or thing.

You're just lost; the path of truth leads to Elea.

>>20827581
And how do you know any of this?

>>20827939
Eleatic philosophy, you should try it out sometime 8)

>>20828094
No, I mean, there was a time where you did not understand Eleatic philosophy, right? How did you go from ignorant to knowledgeable?

>>20828104
I just told you, Eleatic philosophy. I studied and participated in the philosophical project.

>>20828127
Did you learn it all at once, or did you learn it bit by bit?

>>20828144
Both; the answer depends on how one interprets that question. Let's go with the narrower answer, "I learnt about philosophy bit by bit".

>>20828163
How would you know that you were learning bit by bit? Were you aware of each bit of insight you acquired? Were those bits of insights distinguishably real?

>>20828181
Yes, I am aware or have this experience of gaining insight. I can distinguish various details about whatever I'm learning.

>>20828197
>I'm learning.
There's no such thing according to Eleatic philosophy. Remember? Return to
>>20824738
>Zeno and Diodorus AGREE there is motion.
Rather, they deny that things are MOVING.
>Things move but they are not moving.
You're going to have to explain to me how you learned about Eleatic philosophy some other way if moment-to-moment presentist learning is impossible.

>>20828210
You're simply confused; in that quote moving is defined by the presentist model. You should not quote selectively; show the rest of it: "The chronology is complete, the arrow was fired and hits the target, it moves, BUT it is not in some weird presentist model of "moving""

I am not in some "weird presentist model" of "learning". So I am not in contradiction, you just need to read the whole post.

>>20828236
No, I think you're confused. Allow me to explain.
>show the rest of it: "The chronology is complete, the arrow was fired and hits the target, it moves, BUT it is not in some weird presentist model of "moving""
I wasn't being selective. There was a reason why I asked you if you had learned it bit by bit or all at once, since I knew the former was a presentist explanation. It was wise for you to have said "both", since at least you have an account that demonstrates that you've learned. But then you chose to give an account of learning bit-by-bit that fell into the presentist framework. I'm only asking you to revise your statement about how you learned in a way that makes sense according to the Eleatic perspective.

>>20828331
You recognise why I answered "both", and therefore you interpreted “learned” in accordingly. Therefore, you should also interpret “learning” accordingly, rather than pretending that I said it in the presentist sense that I have expressly rejected.

Learning does not necessitate a presentist framework, it is describing the experience located between two relative points. There is no need for a revision, so much as there is a need for you to not interpret half of what I say as though I were a presentist, and the other half as an eternalist.

>>20828383
Remember when you said this here: >>20828197
>Yes, I am aware or have this experience of gaining insight. I can distinguish various details about whatever I'm learning.
I was just asking how it was possible for you to have learned bit-by-bit, especially in the sense that you were "aware" of learning bit-by-bit, since that would require presentist snapshots of each bit as you were supposedly learning.
>Learning does not necessitate a presentist framework, it is describing the experience located between two relative points. There is no need for a revision,
Motion can also be described as movement between two relative points, but I'm not interested in veering off course into the philosophy of space. I just wanted to let you know that.
>so much as there is a need for you to not interpret half of what I say as though I were a presentist, and the other half as an eternalist.
I'm only quoting what you've said. And I gave you a choice between the presentist and eternalist modes of explanation, yet you chose both and even described how you could distinctively be aware of presentist experience (aka firstness).

I'll allow you this. You can either offer a new explanation of how you were aware of the process of learning bit-by-bit as each insight came in, or you can say you learned Eleatic philosophy all at once. How does that sound?

>>20828414
>I was just asking how it was possible for you to have learned bit-by-bit, especially in the sense that you were "aware" of learning bit-by-bit, since that would require presentist snapshots of each bit as you were supposedly learning.

That’s simply false, it doesn’t require presentism, problem solved. If the bits all exist within a Whole (which is true; they aren’t “going out of existence” and “coming into existence” (presentism)), and my awareness is within that Whole, the question is largely answered. By learning I am referring to the experience or awareness at that particular region of the chronology, particularly in reference to how the differences feel.

I am diffuse throughout; it’s not a presentist model where I am limited to one moment and then somehow the moment is destroyed to nothing and replaced with a slightly different, ontologically new moment (which contains a slightly different “me”).


>Motion can also be described as movement between two relative points, but I'm not interested in veering off course into the philosophy of space. I just wanted to let you know that.

But it can’t be described by a presentist model, because it falls into contradictions such as the claim that an “is not” is.

>I'm only quoting what you've said. And I gave you a choice between the presentist and eternalist modes of explanation, yet you chose both and even described how you could distinctively be aware of presentist experience (aka firstness).

No, I didn’t choose both presentism and eternalism. I chose only the eternalist path, that should be extremely obvious. My response of “both” was in regards to the scope of the question, which would determine which of the two answers I could give. You didn’t specify the scope, so I pointed out it could be answered both ways. It has nothing to do with presentism, so there’s no need for me to give you a new explanation. Just ask better questions or make a clear critique of my actual position, rather than this weird hybrid between strawman and gotcha! games.

>>20828488
What "Whole" do you speak of?

>>20828735
Being. That's the omnipresent, all-subsuming metaphysical context for everything we're discussing: "is". If one forgets that context they'll find that their beliefs about reality are incoherent.

>>20828887
Is your awareness of that entire Whole? Or only part of it?

>>20812678
parmenides ain't gonna fuck ya dude (he's not going to read your website either)

>>20829076
Can you just explain your position/criticism or present your questions in a clear and good faith manner? I already played this game once with you, I don't need to see a second failed attempt at a gotcha.

Obviously the question you ask involves a discussion of what constitutes awareness. But yes my awareness is a whole and is held in common with everything else (held in common by the broader whole of "what-is"). I don't know exactly where you're going with this, so I'll add that I am aware of particular details which you can call parts (as long as we don't think part suggests that they are independent/separable from Being).

Just think of a painting, it may have material, various figures, a shape, etc, but it is all 100% subsumed by the painting (Being). But again I don't really know what your angle or question is, because you're just playing a dumb gotcha game with no apparent care for the overall model I am presenting.

>>20829099
I didn't make this thread, but actually Parmenides would like my website a lot and he would probably invite me to join his exclusive club of metaphysical kings.

>>20829189
I already explained my position, that Eleatic philosophy ignores what Peirce called "firstness." I just don't see how you can have a self-aware account of knowledge, learning, etc. with the Eleatic philosophy, unless you learned everything all at once by accident or already know everything all along. What you've told me so far only sounds like special pleading.

>>20829429
I don't know who Peirce is or the model he puts forward, and you certainly haven't presented it to me.

I don't know what you think is special pleading in the eternalist position, If you want a meaningful response I would need some more information.

Regarding the bit where you said "I just don't see...", you suggest two possible answers that you think would satisfy whatever problem it is you're having. I'm not sure what you're getting at in the first answer because I'm not sure what significance the word "accident" has there. The second answer sounds like an eternalist approach though: everything is there all along. Reality is essentially a block world. So if you want to expand on what you mean by the second answer and the problems you have it, maybe that would be fruitful. Or if you genuinely want to know more about my position and tell me specifically where I slip up you could read my work, I try to make it a very accessible choose your own adventure book and if you just tell me where you think I slipped up I can go think about it and revise it if necessary.

>>20829515
I've already gone through the gamut with you already several times. If you can't CTRL-F "firstness" and see it mentioned five times, or simply have it in the memory of today's conversation, then I don't think this will continue to be a productive debate.

>>20829797
You haven't "gone through the gamut" with me about your account of reality once, let alone several times. You keep saying "firstness" in quotes like I'm supposed to know what you're talking about. The only place where you say anything else is in one of your first few posts, where you also say thirdness, phenomenology, and mention Peirce. I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

If you don't want to explain your position that's fine, but I've been pretty clear that I have no idea about the details of whatever system you're trying to reference/assume in your posts. Maybe you have a simple essay or something you can link to, then I can go read it at my leisure some day.

>>20829813
http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/peirce--charles-list-categories.pdf

>>20829829
Thanks, I'll give it a read. From a brief review of the first page I don't think it's a general, accessible introduction to a model, but I will push through the pain of reading such terrible prose and jargon to give it a proper look another day.

>>20829881
I'm sorry about that. It's hard to give a solid introduction in Peirce's own words, considering that he has a slew of core ideas that are continuously being tweaked and revised in hundreds upon hundreds of essays, letters, etc. over the course of his life. There's no singular major work I can hand you like CPR, Science of Logic, etc. Then there's other key Peircian ideas besides the categories such as tychism, synechism, agapism, fallibilism, Peirce's nondualism, the Peirce reduction thesis, the architectonic system, etc., that are often left out. Here's a couple more general introductions into Peirce's work (who is building off of Kant and Hegel):
https://iep.utm.edu/peircear/#SH3a
https://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/1370
>Peirce even briefly confronts Parmenides here
http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/esposito-joseph-synechism-keystone-peirce%E2%80%99s-metaphysics
>(there's a lot more engagement in his collected notes, writings, etc., as Peirce greatly enjoyed Plato's Parmenides and Sophist dialogues, but this will have to do)

>>20829939
Thanks.