Calling All Eleatic Chads - Yes, Even You Tweetophon

[Anonymous No.22401378]

Can we solve the problem of change if we recognize that Being has multiple predicates?

As I understand it, the problem of change comes from the fact that Eleatics hold that everything that is, is, and that everything that is not, is not. Furthermore, they also hold that something cannot transform into nothing and vice versa. Therefore, nothing can be created or destroyed, so nothing can become, only "be."

Well, what if we recognize that Being has multiple predicates? It has at least possibility (in the Meinong's jungle sense) and actuality (arrangements of matter that have manifested in space and time). After all, Being itself both is possible and is actual. Everything "is" in the sense that infinite things are possible, and they have been that way eternally, but only some things are in the "actual" realm, and not always at the same time.

When things in the sensible realm are created or destroyed, all we are doing to these things is giving them the predicate "actual." However, since they always continue to "be" in some way, they are never destroyed. With this multi-faceted understanding of Being, we now have a framework where things can be and also become. Parmenides's challenge is met, and we can now comfortably say he has been overcome.

[Anonymous No.22401384]

Ah there he is, the dang ol' presocratic larper.

[Jon Kolner No.22401756]

>>22401378
>When things in the sensible realm are created or destroyed, all we are doing to these things is giving them the predicate "actual." However, since they always continue to "be" in some way, they are never destroyed.

But Parmenides himself outright said this? If anything, your spazzy diatribe should be leveled against Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.22401822]

>>22401756
Parmenides would say that change in the sensible realm is an illusion. I'm saying it is not.

[Jon Kolner No.22401842]

>>22401822
Okay, so you are trying to make Parmenides and Heraclitus compatible? Okay, that is not that new as Plato already has that covered.

[Anonymous No.22401846]

>>22401842
You're thinking of Aristotle, who ends up fleshing this out in detail the most akin to OP. Come on, now.

[Anonymous No.22401849]

>>22401378
Zhou Dunyi already solved Parmenideanism. The solution is that Being manifests as a dual (Parmenides got this far with his light/dark physical cosmology) and through arms combinatorica it proliferates to create the world.

[Anonymous No.22401852]

>>22401849
>arms combinatorica
ars combinatorica*

[Anonymous No.22401858]

>>22401849
>ars combinatorica
ars combinatoria*

[Anonymous No.22401881]

>>22401849
>dualism
annnnnnd it fails

[Anonymous No.22401884]

>>22401881
Parmenides literally posits a dual cosmology at the beginning of his own natural philosophy.

[Jon Kolner No.22401886]

>>22401846
Okay, well as with most dogmatic diatribes relating to this field of inquiry there is no way to prove or disprove it so we will have to leave it to Aristotle and the other men of the past who may or may not be illusory.

[Anonymous No.22401925]

>>22401884
it's a belief of mortals and a heuristical tool, not what he believes (monism)
>>22401886
There's nothing dogmatic about it. Unlike Aristotle, I posited a mechanism for how this avoids the problem of creation or destruction: the multi-faceted predication of being.

[Jon Kolner No.22401935]

>>22401925
It sounds like weird schizo psychosis shit.

>Everything "is" in the sense that infinite things are possible, and they have been that way eternally, but only some things are in the "actual" realm, and not always at the same time.

Prove that or it means nothing

[Anonymous No.22401953]

>>22401925
Obviously belief and doxa have a slightly different sense than normal in Parmenides since if he thought it really wasn’t anything and just entirely made up not only would he not include doxa in his fragments and say you must “learn” it (implying it’s not imaginary but something that can be learned) but also create his own cosmology. If he were actually just recounting the opinions of mortals he would have made a survey of previous natural philosophy and not posited his own ideas.

[Anonymous No.22402015]

>>22401935
If you break down each part of the statement, you'll see that it necessarily has to be true, especially when combined with the other tenets that Parmenides holds. The challenge is the prove that change is NOT an illusion within the Parmenidean assumptions.
>>22401953
He calls them the beliefs of mortals because they're training wheels

[Jon Kolner No.22402027]

>>22402015
Change being an illusion is a common interpretation. “Lots of stuff exists other places you can’t see” is just outright making shit up.

[Anonymous No.22402032]

>>22402027
What is your problem with the possible realm?

[Jon Kolner No.22402039]

>>22402032
The same thing I have with Christianity and late era Platonism and Neoplatonism and other mystic nonsense.

[Anonymous No.22402048]

>>22402039
There's nothing mystical about it.

[Anonymous No.22402069]

Heraclitus was right, Parmenides was wrong. I have never once observed time freezing.

[Jon Kolner No.22402075]

>>22402048
If you can’t verify it and if it has no relation which you can implement day to day then I don’t consider it worth pondering.

[Jon Kolner No.22402077]

>>22402069
Uhh, All is one doesn’t mean that time can freeze. I am not sure if this is intentionally obtuse or a joke?

[Anonymous No.22402080]

>>22402015
>they’re training wheels
Then why does natural philosophy come AFTER the way of truth in the poem?

[Anonymous No.22402083]

>>22402075
>If you can’t verify it and if it has no relation which you can implement day to day then I don’t consider it worth pondering.
This idea cannot itself be verified and often has no relation to which you can implement day by day because most things are ultimately unverifiable.

[Jon Kolner No.22402089]

>>22402080
Because Parmenides was a mystic doofus and a narcissistic shithead. It’s also why he puts himself at the exact center of the word between night and day because he is the master of truth with his unverifiable jargon.

[Anonymous No.22402090]

>>22401378
Nothing can be merely possible for Parmenides because to be thought and to be are the same thing, and possibility already implies a discontinuous bifurcation of worlds despite the fact that “what is is in contact with what is,”

[Jon Kolner No.22402093]

>>22402083
> This idea cannot itself be verified and often has no relation to which you can implement day by day because most things are ultimately unverifiable.

Okay.

[Jon Kolner No.22402121]

>>22402083
I am very smart. Ten seconds ago, I just created an entire FIELD of study within my head which is unverifiable and without any sort of real world application but it is as real as you and me are.

[Anonymous No.22402135]

>>22402093
Verify it right now. Where is it?

[Anonymous No.22402145]

>>22402090
>Nothing can be merely possible for Parmenides because to be thought and to be are the same thing,
Possibilities are a part of thought and thus are.
>and possibility already implies a discontinuous bifurcation of worlds despite the fact that “what is is in contact with what is,”
Possibilities exist squarely in this world. There is no bifurcation.

[Anonymous No.22402170]

>>22402077
The dumbass also said change was impossible lol.

>All is one
This is retarded though. Why would I ever have to eat if I am one with all food?

[Jon Kolner No.22402175]

>>22402170
I actually think Parmenides was full of shit too lmao I was actually curious if you were misunderstanding him though.

Diogenes btfo Zeno and Parmenides both.

> TIL about Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea (c. 490–430 BC), who claimed that motion is nothing but an illusion. Upon hearing Zeno's arguments, Diogenes the Cynic stood up and walked away.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/gva0ol/til_about_greek_philosopher_zeno_of_elea_c_490430/

[Anonymous No.22402179]

>>22402145
Possibilities are not in contact with actualities. It is split off.

[Jon Kolner No.22402183]

>>22402179
No, you see the possibilities exist in a parallel dimension where you can’t see or experience them but I know because I am so much more enlightened than everyone with my intense circumlocutions and meandering wordplay.

[Anonymous No.22402197]

>>22402179
Possibilities are inherent in everything so they're actually in more contact with everything actual than actual things are with each other most of the time.

[Jon Kolner No.22402199]

>>22402197
That doesn’t mean anything. Lmao just plaster a sentence together of incoherent drivel and call it philosophy

[Anonymous No.22402201]

>>22402183
If you couldn't see or experience possibilities then you would literally live in a world where you had zero qualia and zero change. Unless this is your way of admitting you're a p-zombie (which you probably are, namefag).

[Anonymous No.22402206]

>>22402199
If you don't know what inherence is then you're too low IQ to discuss philosophy. You literally are everything you can be, but you are also everything you are, and you will become everything you will be. This is all consistent with the Parmenidean theses but without violating the precepts against creation or destruction.

[Jon Kolner No.22402210]

>>22402206
>You literally are everything you can be, but you are also everything you are, and you will become everything you will be. This is all consistent with the Parmenidean theses but without violating the precepts against creation or destruction.


See>>22402083

Your extremely dogmatic lecturing about unverifiable jargon does not bode well for any truth you seek.

[Anonymous No.22402217]

>>22402210
You can't verify verificationism. But you can verify possibilities by taking all what you see right now, and imagining one small change to it. It's just that simple, and it's why I think you're a p-zombie, since it has proven a task too difficult for you.

[Anonymous No.22402241]

>>22402217
I dont see how you dont see that a possibility is fundamentally something that isn’t. Parmenides basic idea is that for something to become, it must become something that it was not, hence becoming is impossible. The very nature of possibility implies that it is something that can become actual. That is already forbidden in Parmenides’s system.

[Jon Kolner No.22402248]

>>22402217
I would like to imagine a world where you eloquently explain your point concisely instead of adjusting the physical world and using wordplay so that the laws of two contradictory metaphysicians can work in tandem.

[Jon Kolner No.22402263]

>>22402217
Dude, even if the complete nonsense you were spewing was true it wouldn’t be useful for anything. Not for understanding the world or truth. Nothing.

[Anonymous No.22402271]

>>22402241
>I dont see how you dont see that a possibility is fundamentally something that isn’t.
Because they're intelligible and a prerequisite for something to be.
>Parmenides basic idea is that for something to become, it must become something that it was not, hence becoming is impossible. The very nature of possibility implies that it is something that can become actual. That is already forbidden in Parmenides’s system.
Abandon the becoming terminology. The simple matter of fact is that everything is, When something can be described as actual, or no longer actual, it never ceases to be.

Furthermore, every example I've seen trying to explain how Parmenides "refutes" change, like pointing out the "incoherence" of somebody learning how to play a musical instrument, poses a grave problem for Parmenides itself. If change is incoherent, then you have a problem of two ontological states, never learned or always knew, that are incompatible with each other, yet Parmenides gives no inclination to which one one should pick. With my angle, the potential is inherent in the subject, and the change is merely the expression of said potential, meaning that we take the "always knew" frame and no change as Parmenides would have put it did occur.

>>22402248
That would be wonderful, but it would require a world in which you had a verbal IQ above 100 to appreciate it, which is not a feature of any possible world. I wish you the best of luck trying.

[Anonymous No.22402284]

>>22402263
>I can't imagine my room being 20 degrees warmer, it's complete nonsense!!!

[Anonymous No.22402285]

>>22402271
Do you deny that it is essential to the nature of a possible that it can become actual?you said that the challenge was to overcome parmenides on his own terms. If you say abandon the becoming terminology then you’re not doing it on his own terms because his literal refutation of change is based on the idea that becoming must be into something that is not. Parmenides has always implied modal collapse. Youre basically trying to overcome his change argument by saying that change is not into what is not but into what is potential. But that is not on Parmenides’s axioms.

[Jon Kolner No.22402290]

>>22402271
>>22402284
>prove that this is the case that possibilities physically exist
>>well you can just imagine that it is the case

…

[Anonymous No.22402307]

>>22401378
>Can we solve the problem of change if we recognize that Being has multiple predicates?
Yes.
</thread>

[Anonymous No.22402697]

>>22401378
There's no such thing as an Eleatic Chad OP, there is only BEING and no appearance of differentiation. Get with the program

[Anonymous No.22403383]

>>22402285
Let's abandon "becoming" temporarily. We can return to it after we've dealt with the problem of modality. Besides, did Parmenides even use an appropriately similar term
>Parmenides has always implied modal collapse. Youre basically trying to overcome his change argument by saying that change is not into what is not but into what is potential. But that is not on Parmenides’s axioms.
What is the problem here?

[Anonymous No.22403438]

>>22403383
bruh. Potential becomes actual. Potential is not actual.that is an impossible judgement in parmenides.

[Anonymous No.22403441]

>>22403438
You're focusing on the change of predicate and not the complete lack of a change of subject/substance. No-THING changes.

[Anonymous No.22403447]

>>22403441
Being has two predicates
Being is potential
Being is actual
Potential is not actual
Actual is not potential
Being is not actual
Being is not potential
Being is not being
Being is not
It is not
Impossible.

[Anonymous No.22403761]

>>22403447
It's over. We don't actually exist.

Jokes aside:
>Potential is not actual
Some potential is actual. In order for something to be actual, it must also be potential.
>Actual is not potential
All actual is potential.

I just argued us all back into existence. Thank me later.

[Anonymous No.22403774]

>>22403761
No, wrong. As soon as something becomes actual it is no longer potential. Answer me this, how will you define potentiality? It will be impossible to find an adequate definition without the word “not.”

[Anonymous No.22403781]

>>22403774
>>22402285
>>22403438
>>22403447
>>22403761
>>22403774
Oh I see what happened here. We allowed "possible" to slowly erode into "potential." My bad, I started arguing without having my morning coffee. Moving forward, I'm not going to allow that.
>Possible is not actual.
Some possibilities are actual. In order for something to be actual, it must also be possible.
>Actual is not possible.
All actuality is possible.

[Anonymous No.22403783]

>>22403781
Define possible, because in my understanding of it is simply impossible for something to be both possible and actual at the same time.

[Anonymous No.22403794]

>>22403783
If something were impossible then it could not be actual. It would mean that a certain outcome would not only never occur, but it couldn't even be thought of. Everything that is intelligible is possible in some sense.

[Anonymous No.22403808]

>>22403794
>if something were impossible then it could not be actual
I dont know why you defined impossible instead of possible, but here are the problems. First of all, if something is impossible then as you say it can never be thought. So how do you even have the word impossible? It should be impossible that you can have the concept of impossibility. Second, I assume what you meant to say was “a possible is something that can be actual.” But the words possible and potential both come from different forms of the latin verb potesse, which means can or to be able to. So you haven’t given me a definition, youve just translated from latin to english. What does it mean that something “can” be something else or that something is able to be something else? That is what you really have to define, somehow without referencing non being. Unless you admit some kind of non being it is already impossible to define this.

[Anonymous No.22403862]

>>22403808
>So how do you even have the word impossible? It should be impossible that you can have the concept of impossibility.
Because it's possible to conceive of a thought that has no content. For example, I could utter something like "I'm wearing colorless blue jeans." It doesn't make any sense because colorless and blue are innately contradictory to the point where it is gibberish. We understand that it is empty by comparison to the normal thoughts we have, about things imaginary and extant. I frequently hear of Eleatics refer to things as gibberish, so this has to be a "term" that can be spoken about, even if the term itself refers to things that are, well, gibberish.
>Second, I assume what you meant to say was “a possible is something that can be actual.” But the words possible and potential both come from different forms of the latin verb potesse, which means can or to be able to.
Possibility is more of a general term, while potential carries Aristotelian baggage in that he divides the world of concepts in a way that may not be necessary. I wanted to avoid the Aristotelian baggage in that, yes, potential things cannot be actual, but that is because potentiality is defined in terms of what is not actual and not merely what is possible. Possible is a more expansive term that can be considered as part of a hierachy of being, from possible to actual to necessary.

[Anonymous No.22403923]

>>22403862
You still did not explain how something “can” or “is able to” be something else.

Imagine if english had no latin or greek words and asked you to define what “ability” is and you said something has the ability to be something else if it is able to be something else. Would you not obviously recognize that as a circular definition?

[Anonymous No.22403929]

>>22403923
Lol just looked it up and able also comes from latin. The point still stands though

[Anonymous No.22403933]

>>22403923
Why is ability or can being brought up here? I'd situate can somewhere between possibility and actuality. You can imagine a different future. It's always there. It's a different question if you can bring it into fruition, at least in their lifetime, and that would be a matter of an individual's own actuality.

[Anonymous No.22403935]

>>22403929
A side note, which is funny enough, we've been fucked up by a constant telephone game between Greek and Latin. If we didn't have those two languages we wouldn't be able to do anything in the real world.

The worst is when the two gets mixed up. Potential energy is one. Essence-energies distinction is another. It definitely pisses me off.

[Anonymous No.22403944]

>>22403933
You are dodging or not understanding the question, I asked you to define possibility because my position is that it is impossible to define possibility without a notion of non-being. You said that a possible is what can be actual. I pointed out you just substituted words and didn’t really explain what it is, so I’m am now asking you what it means for that something can be something. It doesn’t make sense to say that “can” is invetween possible and actual when you literally used can in your definition of actual (though in the form of “could” because you for some reason defined impossible instead of possible)

[Anonymous No.22403945]

>>22402175
It would have been worth living through both World Wars to go to Russell's lectures so I could throw something at him. When he got all indignant I'd just shrug and say:

A. You just said motion isn't real so how the fuck could I throw something at your dumbass egg head dawg?

B. You said cause doesn't exist so the fuck you got to be mad about homie? I didn't cause you to get domed by a stapler, a complete description of our space-time manifold just happens to include your ass getting domed by a stapler.

Also, the stapler doesn't exist, it's actually just a collection of timeless, spaceless universals like you said, locked on to some sort of traitless substratum, so I can't possibly have thrown it at you and it can't possibly have hit you.