Parmenides and Non-Being

[Anonymous No.22601961]

Did Plato end up fixing Parmenides's problem with "non-being" by reconsidering it as "other than", making non-being a synonym for difference? Or does this not work? I forgot.

[Anonymous No.22601968]

>>22601961
The eleatic philosopher pointed out that "is not" can be treated as a byword for "other than" and other terms that involve pure affirmation. However, Plato and his minions wanted to go further and ultimately descended into madness due to their obsession with "beyond being" and "Non being". In the end the platonists defeated themselves and willfully set fire to their own philosophical project. Total platonist defeat.

All one has to do is obey the goddess' injunction and everything will work out.

[Anonymous No.22601975]

>>22601968
>However, Plato and his minions
Uhhhh...
>The eleatic philosopher pointed out that "is not" can be treated as a byword for "other than" and other terms that involve pure affirmation.
This is exactly what Plato says in The Sophist and what I was referring to the OP. I don't know what straw man you're arguing against here.

[Anonymous No.22602000]

>>22601975
Yes, and which character in the sophist says it? Oh right, the eleatic philosopher. After that section, Plato then has his puppet say that it's not good enough and they must commit parricide against Parmenides. Which is where it all turns to shit. Platonism is a disaster because Plato and others cling to their incoherent notions of "becoming" and the way it necessitates non being or beyond being.

[Anonymous No.22602016]

>>22602000
It's only parricide in the sense that the Eleatic philosopher redefines non-being to a kind of being and not a pure nothing. If you take the Eleatic philosopher and Parmenides to be in full agreement, then no parricide occurs. It's a fake murder.

[Anonymous No.22602026]

>>22602016
"Redefines non-being into a kind of being" repeat that to yourself slowly and then try telling us it isn't the most retarded move ever made in philosophy. "It's not being but it is being" oh yeah that's going to work out real well pl*tonist.

Absolute state of athenoid "philosophy".

[Anonymous No.22602038]

>>22602026
>"Redefines non-being into a kind of being" repeat that to yourself slowly and then try telling us it isn't the most retarded move ever made in philosophy. "It's not being but it is being" oh yeah that's going to work out real well pl*tonist.
How is that different from what Parmenides did?

[Anonymous No.22602063]

>>22602038
Have you ever read his work or the work of any eleatic philosopher? They didn't posit something called non-being and then use it in their system for some purpose like "becoming". They said you can't talk about an "is not" and the whole attempt to do so is just nonsense that leads to all sorts of confused errors.

[Anonymous No.22602394]

>>22602063
So when we use "is not", what do we generally mean? Are we always speaking in logical contradictions or something?

[Anonymous No.22602415]

>>22602394
See:
>>22601968
>"is not" can be treated as a byword for "other than" and other terms that involve pure affirmation.

[Anonymous No.22602417]

>>22602415
Okay, so what's the problem? I don't get it. Do the Eleatics think we should never say "is not"?

[Anonymous No.22602468]

>>22602417
If you can't understand that series of posts then just don't bother. OP got his answer.

[Anonymous No.22602689]

>>22602468
You're pulling out right when we get to the punchline. Tsk, tsk Tweetophon, I've been nothing but civil, yet you're always such a tease.

[Anonymous No.22602722]

Anyone, uh, read Kingsley?

[Anonymous No.22602732]

>>22601968
Episode 54 of Tweetophon, where he rails against a straw man of Platonism while advancing the views of the Late Plato for the 12th time. Stay tuned for the next episode, where he calls Aristotle a coward only to shill his website where he advances a watered-down version of Nicomachean Ethics for the fifth time.

[Anonymous No.22602868]

>>22602000
> After that section, Plato then has his puppet say that it's not good enough and they must commit parricide against Parmenides.

The problem is with you for taking the arguments of characters as Plato’s personal thoughts on the matter. If you can’t rationalize things without resorting to accusing him of dogmatism the fault lies with you.

[Anonymous No.22603111]

>>22602689
It seems the question was answered. It's not a mere question of what words are used, but what we think "is not" means. If we are saying that an apple is not an orange, and understanding it to be a way of saying "is other than" and affirming the existence of apples and oranges and everything else, that seems fine. There's just no punch line, only the sad descent of platonism into madness because they didn't understand this basic point about metaphysics.

>>22602732
>his website
I have great news for you. The website is old; I have since finished the first draft of a manuscript that is three times longer than what you saw there. Also, everything you saw on the site has been greatly improved.

Imagine it, 300+ pages of eleatic choose your own adventure goodness, solving all the greatest problems of metaphysics, morality, and putting to rest the coffee vs tea debate. All the while spreading the good news of the Goddess.

A true gift to /lit/.

[Anonymous No.22603654]

>>22603111
>but what we think "is not" means. If we are saying that an apple is not an orange, and understanding it to be a way of saying "is other than" and affirming the existence of apples and oranges and everything else
So... the Greater Kind of Difference in The Sophist?
>There's just no punch line, only the sad descent of platonism into madness because they didn't understand this basic point about metaphysics
The punchline is that you're a Platonist in denial. Because you don't understand what Platonism is.

[Anonymous No.22604286]

>>22603654
That will be a very difficult punchline to deliver. I think the price will be torturing Plato with absurd interpretations and outright ignoring much of what he says. You'd just turn Plato into a Parmenidean in denial, which I suppose would be funny too.

[Anonymous No.22604308]

>>22604286
I mean he says what you've been saying is orthodox Eleatism. So, why the hateboner towards Plato?
>I think the price will be torturing Plato with absurd interpretations and outright ignoring much of what he says.
"is other than" is not an absurd interpretation. It's literally the basis of the Greater Kind of Difference.

[Anonymous No.22604354]

>>22604308
Then you didn't read the posts I made, where I said I was fine with the presentation of Eleatic philosophy at that point in the dialogue, where the eleatic says it means "other than". I disagree with what subsequently occurs. Also, Plato wrote more than one dialogue that we can find disagreeable.

[Anonymous No.22604436]

>>22604354
I don't think you even read The Sophist. Your summary and interpretation of it makes no sense, especially given what you take to be Eleatic philosophy. Besides, the Stranger's views largely guide the entire dialogue. He's clearly in control, running laps around his interlocutors. I don't see this debunking of the Eleatic Stranger unless you think that the "is not = is other than" formulation is a false representation of Parmenides's "is not." (i.e. the reason why the Eleatic Stranger is supposedly committing a parricide) ... And since you think it's a true representation, then you actually agree with the Eleatic Stranger's turn, and there was never any parricide to begin.

[Anonymous No.22604691]

>>22604436
How can you say that I didn't read the sophist when I'm the one who had to remind you who the main speaker is in the dialogue, and I've been the first one to mention things like the parricide? I think I've made myself pretty clear, I do appreciate the method they use for locating a particular detail of reality and for initially interpreting "is not", but I don't like the latter part where it goes off into the realm of falsehood as non-being and whatever else takes place at the end there. I'm not rereading the dialogue to counter some vague accusation that maybe I haven't read it.

Maybe you can wait to plonk down some money and buy the enormous eleatic tome that I have written. Literally hundreds of pages of pure wisdom and truth. I am sure it will reveal that I have a solid understanding of the sophist, or else you can stain the book with highlighter and point out where I supposedly go wrong.

But I'm telling you, I've solved metaphysics and by extension all of philosophy, and that's just how it is.

[Anonymous No.22604723]

>>22604691
>but I don't like the latter part where it goes off into the realm of falsehood as non-being and whatever else takes place at the end there. I'm not rereading the dialogue to counter some vague accusation that maybe I haven't read it.
You do realize that the whole point of that tangent on non-being had to do with the fact that if non-being ISN'T "other than", then it would be impossible to distinguish truths from falsehoods, right? Because otherwise falsehoods would be referring to a pure "is not", but nothing can refer to a "pure" is not, so then falsehoods would be impossible. That's what motivates the Eleatic Stranger to make his "parricide" in the first place and to adopt the "is other than", so then we could have the appropriate framework for truths and falsehoods. Did that maybe jog your brain a bit and help you realize that the Eleatic Stranger is Plato, and that the two are apparently in alignment with Parmenides?
>Maybe you can wait to plonk down some money and buy the enormous eleatic tome that I have written. Literally hundreds of pages of pure wisdom and truth. I am sure it will reveal that I have a solid understanding of the sophist, or else you can stain the book with highlighter and point out where I supposedly go wrong.
You're not doing yourself any marketing favors by getting the basic plot of The Sophist completely wrong. If you and the "part two" Eleatic Stranger are in full agreement (because they're espousing Parmenides's views), and the Eleatic Stranger's new view holds at the end of the dialogue, then clearly Plato is holding Parmenides to be correct. So how the FUCK could Plato be shitting on Parmenides here?

You don't make any sense, yet you seem to think you're above trying to hold coherent views. It's patently ridiculous. If your book is anything like the way you normally argue here, I'd be a retard to buy it. I'd probably just get angrier, seeing that it would be a watered-down version of Late Plato (the pinnacle of Platonic thought), mixed with random jabs at the master himself. You can't pretend you're cooler than the junkyard where you sourced all your parts. It's not a good look.

[Anonymous No.22604769]

>>22604723
All this amounts to is you saying that you have a different interpretation of these thinkers and this dialogue. With no substance to it, just a raw statement of disagreement and a complaint. I think you're wrong, I think there are differences between myself and Plato, and Parmenides and Plato, and I think the end of the sophist involves serious mistakes. To do more than what we've done here would involve us cracking open the text and referencing specific passages when making our points.

I didn't source all my parts from Plato, and I think it's pretty clear that platonists don't appreciate that reality is a complete and perfect whole. I can also disagree about other things, like Plato's handling of religion & atheism in the Laws. But ultimately what you need to understand is that my book reveals the absolute truth about metaphysics and you would be a fool to pass that up.

[Anonymous No.22604777]

>>22604691
>I do appreciate the method they use for locating a particular detail of reality and for initially interpreting "is not", but I don't like the latter part where it goes off into the realm of falsehood as non-being
those are the same things you dolt, "not-being" = "other" = the possibility of explaining falsehood at all

[Anonymous No.22604793]

>>22604777
My comment here is my warning against doing that, which is absolutely on point and justified given that all this is ultimately an attempt to shoehorn-in broken ideas of change or becoming which violate the nature of Being.
>>22602026
>"It's not being but it is being" oh yeah that's going to work out real well pl*tonist.
>Absolute state of athenoid "philosophy".

[Anonymous No.22604850]

>>22604793
>oh yeah, not-being as otherness is fine and on point
>WAIT YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN FALSEHOOD BY THAT, THAT MAKES THOSE SAME TURN INTO CHANGE AND BECOMING SOMEHOW

[Anonymous No.22604965]

>>22604793
I don't get how you can simultaneously mock that position with contempt but also hold it as your own position without having your head spontaneously explode.
>>22604769
>I think the end of the sophist involves serious mistakes
You have yet to point out what mistakes those might entail. You have a vague memory of there being mistakes, but it doesn't match up with the "plot" of the dialogue.
>To do more than what we've done here would involve us cracking open the text and referencing specific passages when making our points.
No, you need to do that. I already know how the dialogue plays out. It's clear that you're clinging to an old schema that doesn't reflect how your own views have changed since you last read The Sophist. Right now, you're literally saying that you disagree with your own position by claiming that the latter half of The Sophist bothers you, even though it's meant to prove your own position.
>I didn't source all my parts from Plato
Your website is like a greatest hits of Socratic thought. I was genuinely shocked when I first read it, especially given how much you attack them. You're in complete denial to the point where it has stopped being funny and started to become genuinely grating.
>and I think it's pretty clear that platonists don't appreciate that reality is a complete and perfect whole
You've never heard of The One? Again, Platonism.

[Anonymous No.22605010]

>>22604965
You have nothing to add re: the sophist and you're starting to be grating yourself (although I'm happy you felt the site had some value, you'll definitely love the book which I have written and have on my pc, it's really an amazing work but you can't read it yet).

So let's move on to this:

>You've never heard of The One? Again, Platonism

The One is not Being, you are missing the point here. Platonists don't understand reality as one perfectly complete thing. Unless you're going to say that the One subsumes all things in an absolute and literal sense, but that's not what any platonist I've met seems to believe. Instead the one is typically something that they position "beyond being" and try to talk about nonsense like emanationism. It's a total train wreck (which doesn't happen in my book).

[Anonymous No.22605308]

>>22605010
There's nothing to add because I can't read The Sophist for you. At some point, I'd hope you'll find some spare time to return to The Sophist and clarify what you have to say about the Eleatic Stranger and his interlocutors. I would appreciate your input, because it seems like you need to look at the dialogue with fresh eyes.

But anyways, let's move on.

>The One is not Being, you are missing the point here. Platonists don't understand reality as one perfectly complete thing. Unless you're going to say that the One subsumes all things in an absolute and literal sense, but that's not what any platonist I've met seems to believe. Instead the one is typically something that they position "beyond being" and try to talk about nonsense like emanationism. It's a total train wreck (which doesn't happen in my book).
Here's a related question that might frame the discussion well. What is your opinion on whether Being is a genus? What about whether existence is a predicate?

[Anonymous No.22605403]

>>22605308
Fine, at some point I'll reread the end of the Sophist, but for now I find all that you said to be unconvincing. The fact that you tried to equate "The One" with the idea of reality as a complete and perfect whole strongly suggests that something is going wrong on your end. In which case next time I bump into you I will just be saying "I told you I was right about the Sophist" or I will make some rude comment about you in my book, like Aristotle talking about Melissus only justified.

Regarding the questions you tossed out, I think Being/the Whole/the (Melissean) One/etc could be thought of as a genus or a category or something along those lines. But it's not going to work if we're treating it like a container or set of common attributes that is distinct from its members. It's beyond any sort of dichotomy or division because it is all of that information.

It's like saying, here is a genus of animal and here are all the animals. Well, Being would subsume all those animals and the way they relate to one another and any other information there.

As for existence as a predicate, we can say that literally everything exists in the sense that it is subsumed by Being. But again, there's going to be a problem if we reduce existence/being into one part of a dichotomy or broader model, like saying it is a genus but not the members, or saying it is an attribute of a car or a bird but not the car or bird. As though there was something about the car or a bird that didn't have this predicate, or that the predicate of "existence" is applied to it and therefore there is an "it" beyond "existence", which again is a mistake.