/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15679072]

If change is impossible, why is Parmesan dead?
Checkmate atheists

[Anonymous No.15679079]

>>15679072
I can just buy some Parmesan right now, whatever you are btfo

[Anonymous No.15679164]

>>15679072
Only his body is dead and not his eternal soul, also, change is an illusion

[Anonymous No.15679172]

>>15679164
But my body changes

[Anonymous No.15679199]

>>15679172
It only appears to be changing but really there is just one timeless eternal movement in which the false perception of change and multiplicity seems to appear

[Anonymous No.15679205]

>>15679199
But movement inherently implies change. For even the pebble thrown through the air is not the same pebble it was when it was not yet thrown.

[Anonymous No.15680302]

>>15679072

Ah yes, Parmesanides is my favourite of Plato's dialogues.

[Anonymous No.15680344]

>>15679205
What pebble?
The object you call pebble is mental construct, if there's not truly a real object there then there's nothing there to move, all objects are illusory thus there's no movement.

[Anonymous No.15680443]

>>15680344
The object of my senses is not equivalent to my expression of my sensing it. I sense far more than I could ever express, and my expressing what I have sensed occurs always in the past in relation.

[Anonymous No.15680507]

>>15679072

He's not.

[Anonymous No.15680538]

>>15680344
Whether the pebble is merely a mental construct or a real object is irrelevant if they functionally behave the same. Only when [the mental construct of] a pebble differs in behaviour from [the illusion of the physical object of] a pebble does it matter at all. and then it MATTERs hahagetit

[Anonymous No.15680629]

>>15680507
Of course Parmenides is dead, you idiot. He lived over 2000 years ago. There's no way I could have lived that long, don't be silly.

[Anonymous No.15681556]

>>15680538
(flawed) Eleatic Logic would dictate that there is no pebble, because our senses are false. And the real/truth is one, so there is no real objects. Since "objects" implies multiplicity. There is only the parmenidean one, which is without false senses and only is truth.

How can there be illusions in truth?

Idk :I

The senses and the real always differ, however one is always true.

[Anonymous No.15681589]

>>15679072
Why couldn't Parminedes grasp the concept of potentiality?
>If something comes into being, it comes out of being or out of not-being. It can't come out of not-being, because nothing comes from nothing. It can't come out of being, because if it comes out of being, it already is, since if it only could be and yet were not, it would be nothing, and nothing comes from nothing. Therefore becoming is impossible.
This is easily solved with the concept of potentiality. A thing that COULD BE and yet is not doesn't have to be nothing. It just exists as a potential thing.

[Anonymous No.15681880]

>>15681589
There is an idea of false dichotomy of being and non-being. When, Parmenides "proves" that there is only one being and no dynamic.

If being was split in two between
actuality and potentiality

then, being would some sort of dialtheia.

The parmenidean universe is self-containing since it is one.

The dialetheistic universe would contain two modes of self-containing being, right??? And, so if they would interact with one another they wouldn't be self-containing anymore since there is spillover.

Or, are they self contained?

:^)
Fuck

[Anonymous No.15683625]

>>15681556
It doesn't matter if our senses are false. To say our senses are false implies that they are not equivalent to the "real", that there is no connection between the two. But even so, the senses exist. It does not matter if they are true or false, this is besides the point. What matters is that something that exists changes.

[Anonymous No.15683660]

>>15681589
>A thing that COULD BE and yet is not doesn't have to be nothing.
The potentiality would stay in a potential form since there would be nothing to activate it. As such, potentiality would be equivalent with absence and therefore nothingness.

[Anonymous No.15683698]

>>15683660
What do you mean? If I have a marble sphere, I can carve a face out of it. That face always existed in the marble sphere, so it was not nothing, but the point is that it existed as a potentiality. If we accept this, Parminedes is refuted.

[Anonymous No.15683785]

>>15679072
This is my own take on the Parmenidean subject matter:

>"Parmesan is dead"

Premises:
>(1.) Predication uses the existential verb 'is'
>(2.) Predication necessitates the existence of the state described
>(3.) Predication makes the subject (of a sentence) understandable in the sense being predicated -- eg.: Parmenides is senseless for himself, but is made sense of as dead in the statement "Parmenides is dead"
>(4.) Thought requires the object of thought to make sense

Deductions:
>(ded1.) Sense is the prerequisite of thought
>(ded2.) Predication is what makes sense
>(ded3.) Predication necessitates existence
>(ded4.) Thought necessitates predication

Conclusion:
>"Being and thought are one and the same"

[Anonymous No.15683834]

>>15681589
>nothing comes from nothing
How do you know this?

I put it to you that out of nothing pink puppies come out

[Anonymous No.15683848]

>>15679072
He's retroactively alive.

[Anonymous No.15683862]

>>15683698
Yes, because you are acting as the actualizer of the potentiality in that scenario. In being, such an actualization wouldn't be able to take place for the reasons Parmenides has already given, and as such potentiality would be equivalent with nothingness.

[Anonymous No.15683872]

>>15683834
>How do you know this?
because if nothingness had the capacity or potential for something to emerge from it then it would no longer be nothingness to begin with by virtue of that delimitation

[Anonymous No.15683885]

>>15683834
Since nothing is defined as that which doesn't exist. As such, pink puppies cannot come out since there is nowhere for them to come out.

[Anonymous No.15683895]

>>15679072
That the world doesn't change doesn't mean that parmenides can't.

[Anonymous No.15683958]

>>15683872
Ya got me there anon.
But still, just because you can conceive of a thing doesn't mean that thing exists

I put it to you that the "nothing" you speak of is completely imaginary

[Anonymous No.15684332]

>>15683958
>I put it to you that the "nothing" you speak of is completely imaginary
I agree with you, Parmenides says the same thing. Nothingness doesn't exist and is only a made up conceptual device.

[Anonymous No.15685485]

>>15683698
>The only intelligible possibilities for a >continuous substance are either no cohesion >at all or else perfect cohesion. In the former >case (no cohesion) we conclude that if two >continuous substances mix, they must mix >smoothly and continuously, which implies >that there are no boundaries at all, but >merely a single substance that may vary >continuously from place to place. Lacking> >coherence, there cannot exist any discrete >regions of non-zero extent of distinct >substances adjacent to each other. This >conflicts with the notion of a finite set of >discretely distinct substances (e.g., >Aristotle's earth, water, air, and fire). The >alternative (perfect cohesion) implies that the >boundaries of continuous substances are >inviolate. They may stretch or bend in >arbitrary ways, but the topologies of the >boundaries must remain fixed. Hence each >contiguous region of a given substance >constitutes a topologically unalterable entity.

:^)
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath526/kmath526.htm

Good article we could all benefit about topology of actuality and potentiality :)

[Anonymous No.15685492]

>>15685485
syntax :( I am retard
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath526/kmath526.htm

The only intelligible possibilities for a continuous substance are either no cohesion at all or else perfect cohesion. In the former case (no cohesion) we conclude that if two continuous substances mix, they must mix smoothly and continuously, which implies that there are no boundaries at all, but merely a single substance that may vary continuously from place to place. Lacking coherence, there cannot exist any discrete regions of non-zero extent of distinct substances adjacent to each other. This conflicts with the notion of a finite set of discretely distinct substances (e.g., Aristotle's earth, water, air, and fire). The alternative (perfect cohesion) implies that the boundaries of continuous substances are inviolate. They may stretch or bend in arbitrary ways, but the topologies of the boundaries must remain fixed. Hence each contiguous region of a given substance constitutes a topologically unalterable entity.

[Anonymous No.15685646]

Time is a flat circle

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15685714]

What is this thread even?
Atheists know change is the one constant in the universe

[Anonymous No.15685740]

There is movement and there's unity at the same time.

[Anonymous No.15686143]

>>15685740

[Anonymous No.15686163]

>>15685714
If change is the only constant then there are no other constants to change to and fro, thus there is no change. A state of something is to be at rest, to be at rest is to remain constant, if "there's only change" then there's never ever an instant for things to be and change from and to, therefore there's only constancy and no change at all.
This is the conclusion of Heraclitus and his MONISM.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15686187]

>>15686163
That can’t be real

[Anonymous No.15686398]

>>15686187
try proving him wrong butters

[Anonymous No.15686763]

>>15680629
I saw him just the other day

[Anonymous No.15687470]

>>15685740
There is the perception of movement, but that movement in itself is not real

[Anonymous No.15687485]

>>15679079
It's just a lifeless block of dried cheese, though.

[Anonymous No.15688576]

>>15686763
I saw Parmenides at a grocery store in Elea yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.
He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face. I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.
The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.
When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me. I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

[Anonymous No.15689044]

>>15679164
What do you mean "his eternal soul", he IS the eternal soul. He merely used a body.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15689206]

>>15686398
It does the work for me.

[Anonymous No.15689580]

>>15685492
>>15686143
>>15686163

The quip that the more things change the more they stay the same is grammatically close to the truth. The more change is exerted upon something, the more it not so much STAYS the same but the more it IS the same. That is to say, it actively refines and reveals the quality of its being, rather than passively maintaining itself. This is NOT an "essence" moving through a series of "existences", consecutively consecrating each one as the one that IS before discarding it, a light turning turning on and off through a series of adjacent rooms, both the light and the rooms only being and changing relative to each other. NOT AT ALL. Rather, any particular one immanently is, like THE One, not even like it per se, but IS the One. Change itself being likewise a one, a Monad, look no further than the awesome idea that change NEVER CHANGES, which is not at all "outside" the ones, exerting itself onto them "Newtonianlly", but is fully inside of them as well, or rather fully inside of them first and foremost, like any and all ones are already, and prominently, inside each other, Dialectically.