/lit/ - Literature

>>21936350
>Being named after the Italian cheese
No wonder his philosophy sucks

All of the pre-Socratics were retards except Pythagoras, and his achievements were only assigned to him by tradition rather than Ctusl history anyway.

how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren’t real

I like Plato but Parmenides filtered me fucking hard. It's like 90 pages of "if the one part is in accord with the many, the characteristics of the many are in turn presupposed to be reflections of the unity of their pre-existing oneness"

It's really pointlessly dense considering Plato already shows he has a very practical and artistic mind in his other dialogues.

"move" is a bad word, "change" is more fitting
seems like in essence you are still asking nothing less than 'why is there Maya in the first place?', or 'does Maya have an essence?' or is illusion an illusion?

>>21938401
from whence illusion?

>>21938460
The poem 'on nature' by Parmenides of Elea does not survive fully intact so it's hard to say but a pretty reasonable assumption is that he regarded the illusion as being dependent on or caused/sustained by the One in some way.

>>21936350
>The entity of perception exists in some way, no, so how is it accounted for?
He just bites the bullet and denies that anything other than the One exists, including us. But isn't that a reductio ad absurdum of his position, I hear you asking? Absolutely. But he is still a gigachad for sacrificing sanity for consistency.

>>21938460
>from whence
Can anyone help me here. Doesn't "whence" include the "from" implicitly? Can't you just say
>whence illusion
or would that be incorrect? Are they both correct?

bump

>>21939121
>whence illusion
This is how it originally worked, but the redundant "from whence" arose later as acceptable, probably around the time the word was dying out though. Personally I find the redundant form cringe but it's not really wrong per se.

It’s okay you don’t have to read any of the presocratics since Kant showed that metaphysics is impossible.

>>21939831
thank you

>>21939839
>Show metaphysics is impossible
>using an outdated logic, an incorrect view of math, and a refuted view of space and physics
I- I kneel

>>21936350


Perception is what is between apprehension, and understanding, akin to how form is what is between appearance, and essence, and noema: between notion, and numen.

>>21936350
Parmenides is the most obtuse and hard to understand philosopher of all time and so is Plato's dialogue about him. Good luck trying to figure him out.

>>21936350
>>21940402
Parmendies is extremely easy and you are probably already familiar with the dialogue's main points through Christianity even if you don't know it.

>visceral, physical world = not real and fleeting
>the One/ afterlife = eternal and unchanging

That's it. That is the dialogues main takeaway.

>>21939993
These points are irrelevant because, if anything, science and math have become even more conditioned in their relation to objects of knowledge instead of less. Hasn’t quantum physics proved more than anything that we can’t overcome our instrumentation and that reflections of reason at the limits of thought and experience have equal opportunity to be confirmed or denied?

>>21936350
He was trolling.

>>21941194
What does it even mean to say something isn't "real" if it clearly exists? Makes no sense.
>I think, therefore I don't exist
Is that Parmenides?

>>21942188
The soul/ The One are the only eternal and unchanging things. That is how the dialogue is intended to be read.

I was told on here before that my explanation was "the common one" and there is some deeper one that the poster was still trying to decipher. I do not know what he meant by that.

>>21942192
Could you link me the post on warosu or give me some keyword pointers so I can search it up myself please?

>>21936350
I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say and I had no issues understanding Parmenides or Plotinus. Maybe read the dialogue again?

>>21942218
Things look like they're moving around, changing, etc. correct? Parmenides argues that they're not, and that motion is an illusion, since everything is one. But doesn't your own perception change? Even if all that you observe is an illusion, your perception must be changing to generate said illusions. So, isn't your perception separate from the One? Like I said earlier, it sounds an implication of Parmenides is that
>I think, therefore I don't exist

>>21942233
It would be helpful if you were to provide passages that I can examine.
As far as this is concerned:
>But doesn't your own perception change? Even if all that you observe is an illusion, your perception must be changing to generate said illusions.
This is not, strictly speaking, true. Perception does *not* change. Otherwise, it would stop being perception and would become something else, resulting in the loss of ability to perceive anything. The object of perception changes. Perception itself remains the same, if it is to be what it is.
>So, isn't your perception separate from the One?
I am not sure what to make of this question, in context or in isolation.
>>I think, therefore I don't exist
Not necessarily. Again, the contents of thought change, but thought itself remains the same. This is also a rather broad matter since it brings in some other issues. If we are looking at things from the perspective of pure metaphysics and are considering only eternal and static objects, I suppose that nothing in the material world exists. From a human perspective, changeable things also obviously exist, although they derive their true meaning and (relative) stability from their form, from higher influences that order them.

>>21942192
I don't take it that that's the point per se of the dialogue, for reasons the dialogue supplies:

>"So where will we start and what will we hypothesize first? Or, since now it seems I must play at this worklike game, shall I begin with myself and my hypothesis, that is, hypothesizing about the One itself, whether one is or one is not, what must result?" (137b)

So the depiction within the dialogue is an example for the sake of teaching how to hypothesize, so by Parmenides' speech here, the intention is to show how to hypothesize about other things if you switch the One out with, say, Same or Other or whatever. The set of hypotheses go:

>"Take, if you like," he said, "this hypothesis that Zeno hypothesized: 'If many is, what must result both for the Many themselves in relation to themselves and in relation to the One and for the One both in relation to itself and in relation to the Many?' Then, in turn, if many is not, you must inquire what will result both for the One and Many in relation to themselves and in relation to each another. And yet again, if you'll hypothesize, 'If Likeness is' or is not, what in the case of each hypothesis will be the result both for the very things hypothesized and for the different things both in relation to themselves and in relation to each other? And it's the same speech for Unlikeness and Motion and Rest and Generation and Corruption and even Being itself and Non-Being." (136a-b)

The reason Parmenides teaches hypothesis is:

>"...you still look to the opinions of men..." (130e)

And

>"...you are trying too soon to define some Beautiful and Just and Good and each one of the forms." (135c-d)

So a reader learns a good deal about the hypotheses of the One, but everything else in the dialogue strives to show that this is an example for the sake of hypothesizing about everything else.

>>21942233
It's hard to get a grip on Parmenides, in part because you have his poem, on the one hand, which speaks of Being and Non-Being and associates the latter with opinion, and Zeno's surviving fragments which are about the One and the Many where One = Being and Many = Non-Being = opinions. There's a kind of reading one could do of the poem that would seem to make some sense of it, where he seems to be trying to figure out why we can speak and think of things not presently before us, and even not speak and not think about things right before our eyes (I don't mean something mysterious, just something like, "there's a dog in front of you but you're thinking instead about a childhood vacation"). But Zeno's fragments seem to throw a kind of wrench into that reading, since, whereas you could figure Parmenides to be talking about Being in a broad way that doesn't discount discrete beings but points to what unifies them, Zeno seems to be talking about discrete beings as somehow, as you say, illusory. (But then, Plato's dialogue seems to suggest that Zeno's writings were meant to be polemical aids to Parmenides, so it may be they take some liberties to make their critics look stupid.)

The big puzzle with the poem is to figure out how to put the two parts together, since we have some kind of account of what's true, and an account of opinions, but the latter part is very fragmentary, so if there was more clear explanation, we don't seem to have it anymore. I will note that one of the fragments from the Truth section identifies either thinking and being, or identifies their object as the same (depending on how one parses the grammar), so it seems like he's closer to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" than the opposite.

>>21942410
At times it seems like a reductio ad absurdum applied to the idea that either things exist or they don't. Because you literally can't think of Nothing (as in, there's nothing to even think of) or perceive it and it can't even exist, by definition, and yet you can think of things that clearly we would say "don't exist". So if you can think of something it exists and exists the same as anything in the "real world". And then if the only other option is not existing, and we can say nothing at all about what is not at all real, then you can derive all those properties of unity and so on.

Post Aristotle I guess it's easy enough to say that being or reality are analogous terms and there's levels to it and really it's actuality and potentiality (or whatever the Greek words were), so we can avoid the paradoxes but even earlier in this thread anons were asking how things can have different levels of reality, and how the material world isn't as real as the One.

If that interpretation is historically true at all I think it's a nice illustration of how basic they could get back then, just to sort things out. But as you say, Zeno's arguments don't really seem to track with it that way unless they were really committed to pointing out the absurdity, although in that case I would expect we would hear more about the solution than some references in a few of Plato's dialogues.

>>21942311
I don't think my question was answered.
>Perception itself remains the same.
Maybe I was thinking too much in the veins of Aristotelianism (e.g., that our sense faculties are imprinted on by the outside world, that our mind conforms to the world in the act of perception) when I meant that perception is changing. But something related to perception absolutely is changing. Maybe the images that we form in our minds? That's problematic too. I don't want to be committed to any metaphysical-mental structure. I just want to hone on on this "perception stuff" that does change, even if the rules underlying perception don't change.

>>21936350
Well what he says makes perfect sense if you think about it. I'm not going to think for you, but any model of reality based on perceptions, logic, or anything else that exists eventually agrees with Parmenides. I've personally tried at least 5 avenues to escape this and it's impossible. I've written essays I'll never publish for the past few years and I always end up at his system. In the beginning I was optimistic thinking I finally solved it, but every time it failed. Now I no longer think it's possible so if I think about a way to solve it I know it's going to be wrong. Of course the only way to actually solve this is Christianity and this struggle did lead me to Christ. But I'll let you know, it's not logic that leads you to Christ, it's humbleness, desperation, and agony that one day is lighten up by His grace. I still write sometimes but there's a fundamental qualitative difference to my investigations now in that I'm no longer lost so I write as an intellectual exercise with a mystical contemplative element rather than from an existential need. Anyway good luck.

>>21942533
I mean, it makes a ton of sense to me, everything up to the point where the "motion of perception" is considered.

>>21942442
>At times it seems like...
>Post Aristotle I guess...
Right; there strikes me as this tension between saying that thinking pertains to or is Being/One, which is followed by this account of falsehood in opinions, since whence does the falsehood arise if Non-Being can't be thought or said? It's very puzzling. (Maybe even moreso when looking at the intro to the poem; if man and woman re somehow illusory opinions, per the last part of the poem, then why do we get all of these appearances of female goddesses or a specification that the horses that lead him to the goddess are mares? Is it somehow supposed to show an error he started with before Truth was revealed to him? Is there no difference between man and god?)

>If that interpretation is historically true...
That seems right; I would wonder then whether Plato shows the solution as something to infer if this whole matter of hypothesizing everything is supposed to be a hint of what Parmenides and Zeno are doing, like a behind the scenes look at what must've been done to get the poem and Zeno's treatise as a result. A difficulty with the hypotheses is that, while you can switch out One with Same or Like or what have you, and run them according to the subjects the One is tested against, it seems much harder to tell how it works with, say, Justice, let alone water or dirt. But, presumably, the suggestion is that that's just what they would do.

>>21942604
It's maddening to have to deal with all the lost text and doctrines that never made it down to us, although it may be to a better end forcing us to work through it for ourselves.

>>21936350


Op's question is very good.

>>21943252
that's why it won't be answered.

>>21943252
>>21944087
Berkeley who denies the secondary-primary quality distinction I believe thinks that the only motion is the progression along the constant conjunction of discrete ideas.

Idealism is really silly when you realize these issues are always bumped up. At least Berkeley can say "idk God does it lol" without fretting that doing takes place over time.

>>21936350
This is why the link between change, perception, and time is the fundamental question of metaphysics. Kant's schematization (ultimately bound to time as the cornerstone) is the first major attempt to solve this issue. Heidegger gets a little bit deeper into the issue.

>>21944216
That's not what Berkeley says, read De Motu. Also idealism is not silly, everything else is absurd and refuted my Berkeley himself.

bump

>>21942514
As I stated, I am not entirely certain what your question is.
Are you equating perception with the sense faculties? I would consider the sense faculties to be one set of tools subordinate to perception. But I cannot imagine the sense faculties as being perception itself.
I guess if we were to adjust your terminology, "perceived stuff" changes. And that is indisputably true. But perception does not, for the reasons I described earlier. I also find it difficult to understand what you are getting at when you say that you "don't want to commit to any metaphysical-mental structure" with reference to mental images etc, because the existence of mental images is similarly indisputable. Your willingness to commit or lack thereof is irrelevant to the reality of the phenomenon, which has to be explained one way or the other. Perhaps your goal is to interpret Plato from some kind of materialist perspective? But that is a non-starter, in which case we are both wasting our time.

>>21945181
>"perceived stuff" changes.
Okay. We're on the same page then. The question then becomes, so what? How does Parmenides handle that challenge to his notion of Being?
>"don't want to commit to any metaphysical-mental structure" with reference to mental images
Because I'm not interested in arguing for this mental model or that theory of the mind right now. I'm interested in the core metaphysical question first and foremost.
>Perhaps your goal is to interpret Plato from some kind of materialist perspective?
Bruh, this is so far off the mark, I don't even know you come up with this shit. Are you trying to put words into my mouth?

>>21945199
>How does Parmenides handle that challenge to his notion of Being?
Could you please describe what this challenge is?
>Because I'm not interested in arguing for this mental model or that theory of the mind right now. I'm interested in the core metaphysical question first and foremost.
Then why did you bring up perception, which has obvious subjective connotations? If you wanted to look at a "dehumanised" pure metaphysics that does not concern the human mind and the human perspective, it would be much better to focus your attention on pure logic, wouldn't it?
>Bruh, this is so far off the mark, I don't even know you come up with this shit. Are you trying to put words into my mouth?
No. Which is why I phrased it as a question. As I said, I am not sure what you are attempting to do. I am not sure if you are simply trying to understand Plato or trying to criticise him, nor am I sure how you are trying to approach your goal, whichever it may be.

>>21945213
>Could you please describe what this challenge is?
All change is illusion. But doesn't changing illusion signify change in Being?
>Then why did you bring up perception, which has obvious subjective connotations? If you wanted to look at a "dehumanised" pure metaphysics that does not concern the human mind and the human perspective, it would be much better to focus your attention on pure logic, wouldn't it?
Because of the focus on Parmenides on illusion. It's a simple argument.
>trying to understand Plato or trying to criticise him
I don't give a fuck about Plato right now. I care about Parmenides the thinker, not the Socratic dialgoue. FUCK.

>>21945244
So I suppose you're discussing Parmenides' On Nature rather than the dialogue Parmenides?

>>21944400
it is silly
>all properties are secondary except when describing what God does
silly!

>>21945244
NTA but yes it's fairly obvious that's what the OP and about half the anons have been discussing while the other half have brought up the dialogue presumably because it's what they are more familiar with

>>21941283
>Hasn’t quantum physics proved more than anything that we can’t overcome our instrumentation
Science has been handicapped since 1920s.
Quantum physics is the attempt to explain non physical phenomena in a physical manner. Physicists are materialists and have no real comprehension of fields.
Nicola Tesla thought Einstein was an idiot, and rightly so.
Physical boundaries can be completely overcome and manipulated with the correct techniques.
E.g the patent on Inertial mass reduction etc.

>>21945683
Shhh, not so loud. Remember what happened during the Fark incident.

>>21945576
I'm the OP and I've been referring to Parmenides the philosopher the entire time. Plato's views are unimportant in this instance unless it explains the reason why Plato tried to keep both the world of Being and the world of Becoming as ontological entities.
>>21945283
I'm interested in the views of Parmenides. His poem is probably a better representation of them than Plato's dialogue.

bump

>>21945965
I don't know how much this might help you, since the essay itself is difficult and requires slow reflection, but here's an essay by a classicist going through the poem itself very throughly, if you'd like.

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

>>21946827
And how will that essay resolve the problem I posited in the OP?

I don't mean to be obtuse, but it sounds like you're just trying to waste my time.

>>21945683
This is exactly what I’m saying. Science is not going to establish the limits of reason because it presupposes a functional view of reason for its objects of inquiry. Kant, on the other hand, was able to establish boundaries.

>>21946919
It addresses it by looking at how imaging, appearance, and phantasm work in the poem. I think the essayist is saying there isn't a straightforward rejection of motion or perception, that Parmenides is doing something stranger, as captured by the epigraph of Simplicius the essay starts with, "Parmenides was not unaware that he himself had come into being, and that when he spoke of the one of being he had two feet."

It is a long essay, so if you think it would be a time vampire, fair, but it's so thoroughgoing that you'll have a very sturdy understanding of the poem, what it's concerned with, what it appears to say vs. actually says, etc.

>>21936350
Always must know logic first. The geeks are usually about rational ideas and self evident axioms to the build the world view.

There is no void is ‘proven’ and so thr consequences must follow and the motion is a result of this as you can’t move into nothing as there isn’t ever a case of nothing to move into.

>>21947348
I appreciate the pointers, anon. I apologize for getting irritated. Benardete is always worth reading if one has the time. I decided to go back to his memoirs, Reflections, and CTRL-F "Parmenides", too. Here's what I found.
>Seth: Parmenides’ poem begins that way. The chariot, which is perception, is the guide to noesis. So what leads Parmenides to the gate is what prevents him from going beyond the gate.
>Ronna: It also sounds like a reproduction of the argument between Aristophanes and Diotima, about the relation between the idion and the good.
>Seth: When Aristophanic eros comes into the Lysis, it’s not in relation to the good, but simply as desire for one’s own.
>Ronna: So when desire is finally brought in, the good doesn’t play any role?
>Seth: Right. Then what happens is, in the last phase of the argument, when Socrates is summarizing all the possibilities, he omits the only one that remains, namely that the good is oikeion [akin] to everything. That’s the only proposal that is not discussed. If that’s inserted into the neither nor, it turns out there is no neither-nor.
>Robert: Because everything has this valence?
>Ronna: But isn’t it the neither-nor that is?
>Seth: Yes, exactly. So you have to put this problem in a double fashion. On the one hand, everything has to be understood as neither-nor, and, on the other hand, everything has to be akin to the good.
I'm still confused as to what the neither-nor means, especially since Benardete is trying to carry over a philosophical analogy from Lysis, which I have yet to read. But the contrast between neither-nor and the good is interesting.

>>21947348
>>21947457
Seth: In other words, “day” has a double meaning. There’s both day versus night and then day and night as one whole together, which we call “one day.” One is aesthetic and one is noetic.
>Ronna: And the aesthetic always splits?
>Robert: Heaven and earth, does it work for them?
>Seth: I think so. Together they become cosmos—that’s the crucial move made by philosophy. So it looks as though philosophy becomes philosophy at the very moment this is laid down as an investigative principle. Everything has to be on the model of heaven and earth and cosmos. All the philosophers started this way. And they saw that all eidetic analysis ultimately is connected with causality. So the mistake of the mythographers was that they had split the eclipse of the sun from the shining of the sun. But once you recognize the cause of the shining of the sun, you should immediately see that it’s the cause of the eclipse of the sun. It’s not two separate problems. We know that goes back to Heraclitus. And Parmenides discovered that the evening star and the morning star are the same.

>>21947457
All good anon, there's a lot to read and think about, and it's tricky to parse for what's worthy and what's a time waster.

>I'm still confused as to what the neither-nor means, especially since Benardete is trying to carry over a philosophical analogy from Lysis, which I have yet to read. But the contrast between neither-nor and the good is interesting.
It's been maybe two years since I read Lysis, so my memory's a little shaky, but closer to the end, Socrates paradoxically and strangely suggests that the "friend" is neither bad nor good, but is "friend to the good". I *think* what Benardete is drawing out in your quoted passage is that the implication of something being neither good nor bad is that it's a neutral being, it just simply is regardless of reputation. (We'll set aside how peculiar a thing this is, re: defining "friend".)

On the other hand, it's in a passage later than the neither-nor set where Socrates posits that the Good is akin to everything, which sounds like a comment about beings.

For Benardete, who takes this dialogue to be showing a difficulty or problem in Socratic philosophy (problem in the narrow sense of "something to ork out", just so I'm clear), I think he sees this as the tension between what drives philosophy: on the one hand, you turn to it because your own good is at stake, and you want to discover what is trly good for you; on the other hand, this seems to require a neutral approach to the beings to discover what they truly are, so the good gets put aside. So in the dialogues, Socrates has this double form to himself where he's asking about what Justice or Beauty or Virtue are, because it's important for him to learn them, but his approach requires him to not be too attached to his opinions. Which, actually, sounds like something he might've learned from Parmenides (bottom of >>21942362).

But that's probably enough sperging from me about Plato in a Parmenides thread.

>>21947479
Yes, he goes into more detail in the essay about how much the later Way of Opinion is still connected with the Way of Truth, and not just a rejection of the former.

>>21936478
I personally prefer Pecorinon.

>>21947596
Patrician taste, anon.

>>21936759
Parmenides was the father of philosophy for Plato.

You should spend less time on the Internet.

>>21945244
>All change is illusion. But doesn't changing illusion signify change in Being?
It's still "being an illusion". It never changed it did what it always did and if anything negated itself. True being is unmoved, unchanged.

>>21947374
"Nature abhors a vacuum", but that begs the question of what it does to fill it. It negates the vacuum.

>>21941283
>Quantum
>Quantity
You realize the works spoken about in this thread absolutely blows that theory of out of the water right?

>>21941194
>>21942192
It goes much deeper than that. The explanation as to how that conclusion was derived is important because it shows the power of negation. "Being" compared to "non-being" is just the negation of "being". The non enlightened cannot segregate this and reify the illusions in the first place...also using negation. You cannot think of "non-being", it's not on a polarized spectrum scale with "being" at the top. A maple seed is not maple syrup.

>>21942233
>I think, therefore I don't exist
Indeed, "I think" therefore I am not. For if I were then I would "be", but that changes does it not? I wouldn't have to think about doing it, I would go be doing it and not stuck in this past tense pickle. This is why things that don't think tend to be more permanent than lost souls who ponder said unmoved stones that have been there exponentially longer than they have. The one does not participate in thinking it does not participate in the world of thinkers, just as the sun does not think or participate in the world of thinkers. Still manages to prop you and the planet you live on up into this illusory plane of existence despite this fact.

>>21948430
The point about quantum mechanics isn't saying that science is the end all of knowledge. What it is saying is that science is even more conditioned and its scope is less comprehensive than once thought, something LITERALLY in support of speculative reasoning.

>>21936350
Good thing Parmenides didn't hold that there really is some perception of movement in that sense. It comes down to how many paths you think have been identified by the goddess, 1 2 or 3. The correct answer is 1, and the other "paths" are just meaningless gibberish. Trying to give an account of change involving "creation" and "destruction" is simply failing to give an account. Not some alternative illusion world that needs to be given some ontological status.

Basically the Eleatics are right and philosophy is mostly just a long series or copes to this fact.

>>21948452
Ps are we talking about Parmenides, or the Platonic puppet show by that name? Because Plato came up with all sorts of daft ideas in his attempt to avoid the truth, just see his sophist where he tries to have the eleatic philosopher posit a "non-being", it's absurd. Neoplatonists like Simplicius make it even worse, explicitly interpreting Parmenides as a dualist who believes in a shadow world of change. Don't fall for such absurd accounts.

>>21948430
Don't the illusions change from moment to moment, though? They may not represent Being, but they are beings in some sense, no? I perceive my illusions. My illusions are changing. I don't have knowledge of anything that is presented before me by illusion (by default, since knowledge is something that is grasped permanently, not something that "washes away"), but I still have knowledge that I perceive illusions and only illusions. That seems to be knowledge of change, that change exists, since my illusions are always in flux, even if they're always presenting a bogus "snapshot" of Being.

How does that fit into the Parmenidean schema?

>>21948446
Science refers to the OBJECT/OBJECTIVE. The "testable". It has absolutely no place here. We aren't talking about an object to be negated and you cannot perform a test on a negation( because you have now removed the goddamn object you're supposed to test). "Quantum" is literally rehashed greek atomism and has been debunked before the word was synthesized to describe the concept.

>>21948524
>Don't the illusions change from moment to moment, though?
"Time" is simply a measure of change and if there is no change then there can also be no time. If there were "time" it would have no meaning to the permanent and unchanged with no "beginning nor end". Without spinning spheres in the solar system, we have no sense of how to even reify the measurement in the first place.

>They may not represent Being, but they are beings in some sense, no?
The negations of being. So yes, "no".

>I don't have knowledge of anything that is presented before me by illusion
>but I still have knowledge that I perceive illusions and only illusions
>That seems to be knowledge of change
It's knowledge of illusions. You are reifying the illusions as "change" as something when it is nothing specific whatsoever. A negation of "being", "nothing specific" where as the universe...the unity is "specifically all things". As temporal negation you...well negate yourself eventually.

>>21936350
There's a reason they are called "presocratics."

>>21948616
>Science refers to the OBJECT/OBJECTIVE. The "testable". It has absolutely no place here. We aren't talking about an object to be negated and you cannot perform a test on a negation( because you have now removed the goddamn object you're supposed to test). "Quantum" is literally rehashed greek atomism and has been debunked before the word was synthesized to describe the concept.
Congratulations, retard, you just parroted my own point back to me.

>>21948616
>he wants to negate an object
O i am laughing.

>>21948672
>"The point about quantum mechanics isn't saying that science is the end all of knowledge."
It's a contradictory statement given that "quantum" literally means "quantity", "Discrete". You can't equate it to science or philosophy, it's metaphysical at best. Whatever point you were trying to make is lost in the confusion stemming from this platitude. If you really want me to go into more detail:
>Hasn’t quantum physics proved
No. It hasn't "proved" anything as a theory based upon pure atomistic speculation.

>more than anything that we can’t overcome our instrumentation and that reflections of reason at the limits of thought and experience have equal opportunity to be confirmed or denied?
This fucking triangle did that. No spectrometers or kosher light theory needed to speculate over.

>>21948673
>We aren't talking about an object to be negated
I'm not the scientist here. Who would feel the need to negate the unreal and temporal anyway?

>>21948616
But no illusion is ever the same, aren't they? Each illusion is unique. In one moment, I'm presented with one illusion. In the next moment, I'm presented with another illusion. They are not commensurate. How is this not change?

>>21948524
No, the illusions do not change from moment to moment. That whole model of change is ultimately incoherent and "no real way at all". There are people who try to interpret Parmenides work that way, but you will have to decide for yourself the better reading.

A Parmenidean/Eleatic doesn't need to deny that there are things or sense perception. After all, even the goddess says there are "many signs" that all is one, etc. The issue is how to give them all a context; how should we draw up a model or account of reality.

If you roll a ball down a hill, what is happening? In a presentist model, like those put forward by Plato and Aristotle, there is a privileged "now". As the ball rolls down the hill, you have a successive series of "nows", and this requires one to create and destroy various potential and actual moments. It's just incoherent gibberish, which is why Plato, Aristotle, and others are ultimately failures when it comes to metaphysics.

In an eternalist interpretation, every "moment" of the ball rolling down the hill exists. The chronology is a perfect and unchanging whole, like the rest of Being. Just consider a recorded movie as an analogy. Every scene in the movie exists in an absolute and equal sense. Division is an issue that is taken up by Eleatics, too.

Anyway, point is, we can both agree there is a ball that rolls down a hill. The issue is how to model it. Do we act retarded and try to force these incoherent notions of metaphysical "creation" and "destruction" into that model, or do we follow the thread of coherence and posit a complete and perfect Being wherein the chronology exists as a whole. Post-Parmenidean philosophy is largely nonsense because people can't get over this hurdle. They just degenerate into gibberish like "non-being" or "beyond-being", etc.

>>21948673
this anon gets it

>>21948709
>But no illusion is ever the same, aren't they?
Are they what? They "aren't" in the first place.

>Each illusion is unique.
uniquely not real?

>In one moment, I'm presented with one illusion. In the next moment, I'm presented with another illusion
It's the same non moment. Where did the other moment go? Did it pass? Pass to what? To another universe? To another One to contradict the One?

>They are not commensurate.
Exactly! It is incommensurate? Indeterminable? How are you ever going to figure it out in the first place them? By "what it is not" of course.

>How is this not change?
>Not determinable
>No common standard
>cannot be expressed

It is "not".

>>21948755
>Are they what? They "aren't" in the first place.
How are illusions not real? You're witnessing illusions right now. So am I.
>Where did the other moment go? Did it pass? Pass to what? To another universe? To another One to contradict the One?
I don't know man. I just know they happened, are happening, and will continue to happen. They're all real but different. I seens it with mah own two eyes!

>>21948755
>They "aren't" in the first place

By definition, if you are referencing them they "are". Everything we talk about "is", it all exists.

>>21948767
>How are illusions not real? You're witnessing illusions right now. So am I.
This doesn't explain how the illusion is real. All it implies is that what you're seeing is not how it actually is, it's literally "not the real deal"an illusion.

For example it's the equivalent of saying a shadow is real. Is it real because you see it? That you can take a tape measure to it and measure it? Feel the effects "from it" when you put your hand in the cast of it and feel it become cool? A shadow is not real, it's the ABSENCE of light. You cannot capture and quantify a shadow in an experiment, you cannot separate it and determine "what properties it has". It *has* none, it's absent of the properties that make it phenomenal. It's pure privation, defined by everything else. It has no essence, no quantity, no being, becoming, or going. There is no possibility of determining what exactly this illusion *is* yet would you still call it real and attribute it to a cause? Just because you can see it with your own eyes? No, you investigate the cause and that has nothing to do with arguing semantics and coming up with coping strategies for convincing people that a lack of something is something. It's given these properties by something else entirely that you wrongly attribute to the shadow which you're calling real when it's the exact opposite.

>I don't know man. I just know they happened, are happening, and will continue to happen. They're all real but different. I seens it with mah own two eyes!
"Blind man and an elephant" applies here. You see with lenses that distort the light which makes things visible in the first place.

>>21948781
>By definition, if you are referencing them they "are".
Synthesized subjects to be spoken about. Again we can go 300+ replies with semantics here involving what constitutes "real", but I am speaking from an ultimatum. Ultimately they are unreal and simply the expression of ONE thing that always was and never changes.

>>21948852
>All it implies is that what you're seeing is not how it actually is,
An illusion of an illusion is still an illusion. Even if it's illusions all the way down, it's still an illusion, and it's still changing. I'm witnessing illusions. And they're qualitatively different from one another.

>>21948859
>An illusion of an illusion is still an illusion.
>and it's still changing
>And they're qualitatively different from one another.

You couldn't explain this without contradicting yourself even more than you already have. How can they be qualitatively different from the One other than through negation? Where would such knowledge be derived?

>>21948898
>Where would such knowledge be derived?
Analyzing and then examining my own consciousness, which is a composite of all the illusions I have experienced in my life.

>>21948915
>my own consciousness
Oh? Like how a radio has its own signal?

>which is a composite of all the illusions I have experienced
Which leads you to the illusion of a conclusion.

>>21948938
>Oh? Like how a radio has its own signal?
It receives and transmits signals, yes, with the help of an operator. The operator remembers the frequencies in sequence.
>Which leads you to the illusion of a conclusion.
An illusory conclusion still is and can be spoken of.

>>21948852
>Synthesized subjects to be spoken about. Again we can go 300+ replies with semantics here involving what constitutes "real", but I am speaking from an ultimatum. Ultimately they are unreal and simply the expression of ONE thing that always was and never changes.

This is utter gibberish, the result of failed Neoplatonist grasping. Absolutely LMAO at shit like "synthesised subjects", "unreal", etc. Platonists and other delusional interpreters gtfo

>>21948951
>It receives and transmits signals, yes,
The radio tower transmits and if you have a ham radio you can also transmit. But receiving a signals requires tuning, and breaking the radio does not break the signal unless it's making the signal. The analogy could be taken to the extremes, but I think you understand what I meant.

If you break, does that mean soul breaks too? Do you "have consciousness" or "have soul" despite matter being a torpid bitch that has to be given the properties it has? Does the matter just move itself for no reason?

>An illusory conclusion still is and can be spoken of.
As a subject, not an object. "As real as a fantasy".

>>21948962
>This is utter gibberish, the result of failed Neoplatonist grasping.
We aren't talking about objects here, materialist. Sorry that what I'm saying didn't line up with whatever academic Jewish translations you've been relying on.

>Absolutely LMAO at shit like "synthesised subjects"
Yes "synthesized" as in someone came up with these subjects. How many more do you want to pull out of a vacuum? Synthesized fantasy woo, it'd be more interesting if someone started quoting 40k lore.

>>21949026
>The analogy could be taken to the extremes, but I think you understand what I meant.
And did you understand how I twisted it?
>If you break, does that mean soul breaks too? Do you "have consciousness" or "have soul" despite matter being a torpid bitch that has to be given the properties it has? Does the matter just move itself for no reason?
Matter is effete mind. Take the Anaxagoras pill.
>As a subject, not an object. "As real as a fantasy".
How do you distinguish fantasy from reality?

>>21948708
>this fucking triangle did that
You mean the shape firmly situated within space as a form of experience?

>>21949026
Absolute clown show. Don't worry so much about me, worry about the fact that you think people "come up" with what-is-not, along with whatever other "unreal" things you care to mention. Which, again, by definition "is". Listen to the Goddess and refrain from pretending that you can talk about the "is not", which is also pointed out by other great thinkers like Melissus.

Casting Parmenides as some sort of ontological dualist is shameful.

>>21949072
>Matter is effete mind. Take the Anaxagoras pill.
Extended to "the One" this could be said to be true, but that leads us back to the particularization...us, the illusions and non existent phantasms that are really what the One does.

>How do you distinguish fantasy from reality?
Reality is not a part of fantasy but fantasy is a part of reality. Reality is a state of things as they "exist", but as discussed those things ultimately do not exist either. This is where the

>>21949137
>Absolute clown show. Don't worry so much about me, worry about the fact that you think people "come up" with what-is-not
>Listen to the Goddess and refrain from pretending that you can talk about the "is not"
Did the "40k lore" joke strike you so deep?

>Casting Parmenides as some sort of ontological dualist is shameful.
Negation: This kills the dualism. "Is not", "no change" is not a fucking dualism, dipshit.

>>21949164
>This is where the
Taken out by radical Heracliteans before he could deliver the lede. Now he is not. What a shame. Sad!

>>21949164
>Negation: This kills the dualism. "Is not", "no change" is not a fucking dualism, dipshit.

It is when you start referring to the negation as it's own ontological category, you drooling platonist bag of shit.

Reread your copy of the Sophist, what does the Eleatic Philosopher do before Plato has him betray Parmenides? He notes that "is not" must be defined as an affirmation that something "is". It all "Is", and "is not" is not an ontological alternative (utter gibberish) but rather highlighting or pointing to a different aspect of what-is. If an apple is not an orange, we are affirming there is an apple, there is an orange, and there is some distinction, and there is some broad context that holds it all in common. "Is" permeates the whole, Being is omnipresent and your position is a two-faced neoplatonist train wreck.

>>21949180
What's wrong with Neoplatonism? What's better?

>>21948467
>>21948711
Goddammit, if it's not Tibfulv fucking up an Aristotle thread, it's Tweetophon fucking up someone else's Parmenides thread. You'd actually get engagement with your points and site if you didn't stomp around like a pompous ass whenever you show up.

>>21941194
According to Copleston, Parmenides was a materialist (and you can imply this from when Plato and Aristotle talk about him), so there ain't this division between the material and the ideal world. Although, Aristotle make this division uniting Heraclitus (with the material, fluid world) and Parmenides (with the ideal, eternal and imutable world).
Or do the anons think that Parmenides was indeed an idealist?

>>21949180
And yet clearly the apple is not the orange. You can't really, for real, outlaw is not if I can just come up with an example in front of you.
Then there's the question in OP, clearly one moment I can perceive an apple and one moment I can perceive an orange. That's change, how does what I am perceiving change if there is no change?

And then also someone, I think it was you, mentioned the eternalist theory which is no answer at all to the question. If you rule out time existing of course you "solve" the question of change, because change and time are identical. That doesn't change the fact we experience it and it doesn't answer any questions about why or how we experience it.
If I were asked to solve some equation, it would hardly be an answer if I just threw my toys out the pram and starting whining about how the variables and symbols aren't real anyway, that would be an asinine response.

But enough about this thread, the final BTFO to your interpretation is that on the most fundamental level, your perception IS NOT what is, because we perceive change. Even if perception doesn't change because you wish to carry on with your eternalist cope then it's still different to what is, the one, reality, whatever you want to call it, and if difference exists then what is not (in some sense of the phrase) does exist.

>>21936350
"The more things change, the more they stay the same." -Parmenides

bump

I can't tell if the participants of this thread are incredibly intelligent or fucking retards.

>>21949196
If we're discussing metaphysics or theology, pick a genuinely monistic position. Neoplatonists make the mistake of trying to posit an "is not", some sort of "beyond being" or "non being" or other such gibberish. This bleeds into their theology, too.

Because of this basic error, NeoPlatonism is a non-starter.

>>21949198
then take the eleatic pill and show us all how it's supposed to be done

>>21949680
Did you read the post that you're responding to? I said the apple is real, the orange is real, and the distinction is real, it's all real. "Is not", or negation, is understood as "IS other than"; affirmation is present at all points in the meaning of the sentence, because Being is omnipresent. I defined it that way because negation, as an alternative to Being or affirmation, is gibberish. As shown by the Eleatic works/arguments.

As for change, try defining what you mean by the term. Here's what has probably happened: you've taken a bunch of experiences or data points, and strung them together in some model. The second part is where you made the mistake; you think that moments in time are created and destroyed, or some other nonsense that was ruled out by the broader metaphysical discussion.

The point is to place those experiences or sensations in a model/context that does not violate the broader metaphysical principles/context. Hence I don't deny there's an apple or an orange, I don't deny that there is a dimension of "time", I just deny these obviously absurd and contradictory models that you and others put forward.

You can't BTFO anybody by saying "change change change" until you actually have a coherent definition or understanding of that term. Which you won't have until you pay attention to the omnipresent nature of Being.

>>21949169
I reformatted my reply and left a part from the other one. Deal with it or give me another (you), I don't care in which order.

>>21949180
>It is when you start referring to the negation as it's own ontological category
What example of what I said did this? I tried to elaborate when I said "synthetic synthesis", but apparently that wasn't good enough for you and you really do want me to say "haha you're talking about nothing" instead like your comparison to the Sophist begs me to do. Also you never seem to read the part where I say "Ultimatum/ultimately". Life is so short and you can argue all day fucking long about "What is real" "and what is not", but ULTIMATELY if it's "as real as a fantasy" then you're just treading the line of "Reification" and "False reification".

>. If an apple is not an orange
Objective negation leads to...
>we are affirming there is an apple, there is an orange, and there is some distinction, and there is some broad context that holds it all in common.
>and there is some broad context that holds it all in common
Synthetic synthesis

>>21951682
You make no sense at all, desu. Now you're just throwing in new terms that only further prove your dualism, "reification" vs "false reification". I also have no idea what you mean by "objective negation" somehow leading to "synthetic synthesis".

If you want to say something substantive, just answer whether everything IS, or if you are positing some distinct category like "is not"/negation.

I answered very clearly: I recognise that Being is omnipresent and therefore I understand the grammar of "is not" in a way that accords with this context. So if we say "an apple is not an orange", the "is not" is defined as "is other than", and we assign the whole sentence affirmative meaning - the apple is, the orange is, and whatever distinction we are drawing out is. This can be analogised to a painting of an apple or an orange, we can see them and how they relate, and all these details or things are totally subsumed by the broader picture (Being). There's no mysterious illusion world beyond the borders of the picture, where "what is not" now "is" and "what is" now "is not", and the picture can become something "other", and whatever other such nonsense people try to affirm as their words degenerate into utter meaningless gibberish.

>>21942533
Plato btfo Parmenides

>>21951910
>Now you're just throwing in new terms that only further prove your dualism, "reification" vs "false reification".
There was no dualism presented.
Reification: "To reify" is to treat an idea/abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence.
False reification: the error of assuming that a pattern of data represents a “thing” in the real world, when there is no evidence for the existence of "thing", other than the pattern
Name a patent" is an example of reification. "The shadow" >>21948852 is an example of false reification.

> I also have no idea what you mean by "objective negation" somehow leading to "synthetic synthesis".
Literally the exact same thing you just illustrated in your example of the apple/orange.

>If an apple is not an orange
The object of negation is "the apple". Affirmations yes, but you're applying the negation regardless.

>we are affirming there is an apple, there is an orange, and there is some distinction, and there is some broad context that holds it all in common
>synthetic
As in "not analytic".
>synthesis
Combination of idea to form a system. The "broad context" they share with everything else. You derive these all from negation of the object of inquiry.

>"Is" permeates the whole, Being is omnipresent
And back to square one with another moron asking "what is an apple" again. At least we know it's not an orange.

>>21952160
No idea what you are trying to say when you type "the error of assuming that a pattern of data represents a thing in the real world..." Why are you positing this "real world" distinction, and what do you mean by "pattern of data" representing something?

Shadows exist. If you're just saying that "false reification" means thinking that the shadow is something other than a shadow, then that is nothing more than a statement which fails to correspond or reflect that to which it is referring. There only is a real world, and the statement, "pattern of data", shadow, etc, are all in it together.

What you tried to write about "synthetic synthesis" still sounds like either gibberish or a painfully bad word game. Can you just speak plainly? You also didn't engage with the analogy at all and I have no reason why you think that we're "back to square one with another moron asking "what is an apple" again." I'm about done with the word salad you keep vomiting up for us.

>>21952200
>No idea what you are trying to say when you type "the error of assuming that a pattern of data represents a thing in the real world..."
Go chase a shadow and find out.

>Why are you positing this "real world" distinction, and what do you mean by "pattern of data" representing something?
Go chase a shadow until your face turns blue.

>Shadows exist
And you will never be able to explain how even after you pass out from exhaustion from chasing them.

>"them" hohoh! potential is actual now! You admit "they" exist!

Shadows have no potentiality or actuality. You're attributing the effect you're dubbing a "shadow" to its own thing when it's really just light. It's "less light". This loose definition 'less light" is defined using lack. Privation. It literally "lacks what it needs for existence". Defined one illusion into two is what you've done, a dualism of light. As if the Kosher one wasn't bad enough.

"As a fantasy it's real" then whatever, you're not saying anything of use.

>Can you just speak plainly?
You demonstrably showed in your own example that what I said was the case. You negated the object, you synthetically found truths that were part of a pattern and synthesized those truths. Is this not enough for you?

>>21952423
Why do I need to chase a shadow? I can point to it and say "there is a shadow". Case solved.

Meanwhile, you are stuck in some delusional, dualistic fantasy where there's the "real world" and the "fantasy world", of "real things" and their "shadows", and other such nonsense. Even worse, this dualistic position is presented through painfully bad jargon and writing, and topped off with the blind insistence that you're actually saying something meaningful. Terrible, can't believe I responded to you this many times, Goodbye.

>>21952423
Advice, but if you run across Tweetophon (loves what he thinks Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus are about, hates Plato and Aristotle), don't argue with him. He's not interested in a conversation, he just wants you to say that his peculiar interpretation is right.

>>21952455
>Why do I need to chase a shadow?
Why look for the cause? Why answer any question at all? Just sit there and piss on yourself instead. Go find yourself a barrel like Diogenes while you're at it.

>I can point to it and say "there is a shadow".
>t. prisoner of the cave