Parmenides - the Philosophy of Being
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 12. 2018
- Get ready for a thought that will blow your mind when we explore the philosophy of Parmenides.
See all videos here: bit.ly/solomonsmap
For updates, follow me on social media.
Facebook: / solomons-cave-33229383...
Twitter: / solomonscave
Instagram: / solomonscave
Music:
Kevin MacLeod - Pop Goes the Weasel (incompetech.com/music/royalty...)
MultiMusic - Colossus ( / multi-colossus )
MultiMusic - Equus ( / multi-equus )
Multi - The Era Of War ( / multi-the-era-of-war )
#parmenides #parmenidesphilosophy #philosophy #greekphilosophy #presocratic
I work in philosophy too and these days when everyone is at home I find it very helpful to recommend good videos to my students. I really appreciate your work! :)
Thank you, that means a lot.
My formal education is in theology, so I'm glad to get enough right about this sister-topic to be recommended :)
I have been struggling with what Parmenides has been arguing about, I thank you for your explanation, as it was elaborate and fully detailed. This is great!
Dude blew my mind. Best explanation to the Poem!!
oh my lord thank you I'm taking an ancient philosophy course with no background understanding in philosophy and when we got to this guy my brain melted. Lifesaver!
If we investigate the historical context of Eleatic philosophy we find it is the outcome of an archaic language wherein uttering "yes" and "no" always involves a determination regarding the reality or unreality of the objects mentioned in the statements.
Many thanks. This has been a great series so far!
Thank you for this video. Much appreciated with the clear discourse and the nice visuals to accompany the dialogue of your narrative.
Really appreciate how simplified it is! It becomes so hard to understand philosophical doctrines but your explanation was so easy to understand.
Awesome work! Can't wait for more!
I came to this conclusion my self without even knowing of Parmenides and it gave me chills down my spine
He may not be correct though ;)
@@SolomonsCave Considering that a priori truths and deductions are logical certainties, and a priori deductions about Existence itself are logical certainties regarding Existence, it would be foolish to deny them.
Meridian I also came to the same conclusions myself, afterwards realizing that Parmenides was right along, and just how fundamentally important his ontological deductions are. You see, many people learn about Parmenides, very few of them actually fully understand the philosophy, and even fewer people are capable of fully accepting the deductions in a way where they are able to incorporate the fundamental truths into a coherent Worldview that is consistent with all of their other beliefs. :)
@@thatchinaboi it kinda freaks me out how old the universe must be, realizing that it's existence has always been. it amazes me. It's as if we're stuck in a bool state except that the bool can only be one state(true) in this case "Existing".
Meridian The truth is definitely a mind fuck from the normal perspective. Logically it makes perfect sense and is irrefutably true.
I am going to watch all your videos, great stuff!
this is very good material... outstanding explanation
Thank you. Perfect as always. 🎉
Awesome video, glad I found this channel
Solid
thank u man, it is really good and a useful video.
Great content. I've been on a deep dive into the idealism that can be traced through Plato and Plotinus back to its source, Parmenides. This video helps tie a lot of it together; thanks!
Great! This is certainly idealism in it's... fetal form so to say.
@@SolomonsCave sounds more like Advaita Vedanta (non dualism) to me....
Good stuff! 😌
Nice video. Thank youuuu
what a man!
I've been working for a presentation about him for my Philosophy class, and as a student this video has been a great help to us :>
I excelled for our presentation. Thank you! :>
So basically you cheated 😂 copied his presentation and presented his presentation 😁
keep uploading man
Oh... I was hoping to watch your Heraclitus Video. It's so sad that you stop creating these great videos.
As I was watching I guessed you had around 200,000 subscribers, but 300? What???
You gotta earn them, one at a time ;)
I would say Parmenides was engaging in true metaphysics, genuine philosophy; his poem On Nature seems to allude to that. An experience of the platonic form of the good as one emerges from the cave shadows to more real things.
Or... Philosopher Kings are just saying that to prop themselves up. There is no Good you can define definitively. There is comfort... At least Akhenaten was honest when he pointed at the sun and said to all, there... there is my God.
Intense
Whatever is, is. Anything that comes from the realm of motion are simply thoughts or opinions, that can be sublated or negated.
Thanks, I feel like many undergrads dont do their due diligence in regards to the ancients
I really appreciate this! I will say though, of true belief has no basis, there is nothing confirming that is actually true belief.
I like the quote from the Big Lebowski....
A great movie too!
I was searching for this comment phaha
Good one :D
Parmenides was a boss
The Dude abides. That is Parmenides.
Wow, my IQ just went up to 1 million. Jokes aside, thank you so much this was really helpful in my studies.
I highly recommend Reality by Peter Kingsley!
Sooner or later the great Parmenides will be proven right.
Could this example of particles moving be the way the Corona Virus moves..? Movement but we cannot see the movement?
It absolutely is like Pythagoras, and Socrates and his concept of the Daimon. Romans called this the Genius, and more than one Genius are Genii. Daimon is essentially a spirit, or being, divded into Agathodaimon, your matron or patron guardian or "godmother/father", and Kakodaimon which is a negative entity 💁 relative to our own time, society and these ideas were contemporary in the same way as guardian angels, many of which cross lines in the course of time. Some had belief in something more, some did not.
Like Jung's shadow...
why you don't upload anymore? :( This channel seems super-interesting
Busy busy busy :(
My study, two jobs, other things... I haven't forgotten about this channel though.
I don't know if I understand it, but interesting video nonetheless! Like motion for example, if someone is running, and two people see it differently, then it can't be real? Or am I taking the theory too literally? guess I'll have to read more about it :p
I think you're getting it. See now Zeno took this concept to the next level :)
No, it's real. I think this is just an early attempt to explain relativity. Heraclitus did it way better.
"It is what it is" - Parmenides, probably
It is what it is.
How would you extrapolate these thoughts to virtual things? Like bitcoins, videogames characters, etc. Comment!
Why is that relevant?
@@Darth377Zethlyn because virtual things can easily be created 'out of nothing' or destroyed, almost like the things in our imagination... so I was wondering what would Parmenides have said about that
What's the metaphisical or ontological status of a hole? It is, by definition, the lack of material on a wall, but is it a being? Is it a property of a being?
As I say about Swiss cheese: the best cheese is around the holes :P
A similar question can be asked about darkness, cold, and with Augustine: evil.
I would say they have no ontological reality, only a practical, psychological, or linguistic reality. But hey, I'm just a dude with a CZcams channel, what do I know?
@@SolomonsCave I thought it had no ontological status too, that it could be only an extension to matter, like shape, size etc. But this text makes the subject a little more complex:
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil375/Lewis1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiFmsTz3-3rAhUxm-AKHc-vAGAQFjAQegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0GP7j8a7FLtaxKo8nSm9nk&cshid=1600263174215
Metaphysics is just a search for Eternal Truths and Purity, which don't exist. And holes exist. You can use them. Real nothingness, though, the absence of all space and time, is something we can talk about, but we cannot fully comprehend.
I believe Parmenides is reifying Being. He was simply struck dumb by a gerund... that, and the theoretically possible - but, in practice, absurd - concept of Infinity. Finally, it sounds dumb to say that a hole is a being, but if we say it exists, that's usually fine. It's just words.
great video, just maybe fix the ending song which is much much louder than the rest of the video
My head hurts
Reality = That which is/That I am.
That which is, that is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential).
0. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)
Since that which is not, is not; That which is, is all-inclusive: Absolute, Eternal, Infinite.
Actualization of potential is Eternal and the potential for actualization is Infinite, because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.
Parmenides never took into account that the human brain perceives time as linear, moving in 1 direction towards the 'future'.
Interesting. Can you say more about this?
Our perception of existence is bordered by past ( memory ) and future ( dreams ), imho
Since that which is not, is not;That which is, is all-inclusive (Absolute).
Reality/Life = That which is/That I am.
0. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)
Life, the All in One in All, eternally actualizes infinite potential, because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.
Why is there no Heraclitus, if you have Parmenides?
I know, I know :(
I hope to get back to him one of these days, he really does deserve it.
@@SolomonsCave please make one for heraclitus
Young Socrates talked to Parmenides, lacking evidence
Why would the arche have to be composed of particles? Isn't that just atomism? The gospel according to John says the arche is logos.
Atomism developed later, in part inspired by these theories.
As for the Gospel a/t John, though he may have played with this idea, he starts with "en arche" (in the beginning), which hearkens back to Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint. In fact, three of the four gospels have explicit connections to Genesis in their opening line (Luke being the exception, though he traces back Jesus' lineage to Genesis 1-2 in chapter 3).
@@SolomonsCave @Solomon's Cave Well if you think about where and when John was writing, the people he was writing to would have been familiar with this dispute over what is the arche. John's gospel can be observed to be geared to a more philosophically minded Greek audience than some of the other gospels geared more to Jews that describe Jesus's lineage from David and Adam. So it's fair to say John 1:1-3 hearkens back to the pre-Socratics as well.
7:48 how can nothing generate something?
I have the answer in my research.
"Not-Being" is not an opposite of "Being," but a negation. There are implications. The former is relational where the binaries define each other, while the latter is a logical contradiction. We could try to set Off and On as opposites, perhaps... but that would imply a current or setting... What do you think? There's much more to discuss here.
Interesting question and it gets at the heart of what "being" is.
I do think that being and not-being are opposites. Some things have opposites and negations: heat and cold, where sometimes the opposite can be more or less precisely defined as a negative. Cold is the absence of heat, but heat is not the absence of cold.
Other things don't have a clear opposite and can only be negated. The negation of a dog is not a dog, but the two are not opposites.
But when it comes to being (in the way Parmenides and some others define it), that is in a category all by itself, where the negation and the affirmation are perfect opposites.
This also goes to the heart of other discussions, like the medieval realists vs. idealists, Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God (and why it is or isn't valid) and more modern ideas.
@@SolomonsCave Thank you for your response. Okay... some more questions, if you don't mind. 1) If the word for the negation is "Not-Being," then what is the word, the name, for the relational opposite of "Being"? It seems that our grammar urges us to use negative forms of adverbs or affixes because our lexicon denies us a good characteristic word. But what is "Being" really then to begin with? ... It's a gerund, the Act of Being, really. It's not a proper Name. My head gives me "Existence" as an alternative, but that's just a Latinate form, and it also has no true opposite. "Oblivion" comes to mind, but one must have already come into existence if they're going to be forgotten, so that won't work... I don't see this as a problem. This lack of an opposite name for Being or Existence itself is a fact about the concept, and our ability to comprehend that phenomenon. ... This is leading somewhere, but I'm going to take a breath for a moment. Thanks.
@@SolomonsCave So when we talk about Being, we're signaling an Action and not a Fact, not a Name, not a thing. I always found it ironic that Parmenides argued against motion on behalf of an Act. He mistook an Act for a Fact. Sooo... What is the opposite of "Act"? ... Can Actions have opposites, or do they just end up being two parts of one process, ie. Live-Die. ... rather than a description of opposite qualities or characteristics. ... Can opposites only be Nouns, Adjectives, Adverbs, and Prepositions, or can they also be Verbs? I think my argument just above proves the latter false. ...
@@SolomonsCave so Parmenides is actually looking at the Process of Acting and Not-Acting, rather than this supposed Thing called Being. He's analyzing Existence in a personified form, rather than as a process in space-time. This is his deity. ... Okay, so... Life and Lack. Those two could be the real opposites we're looking for. They're flawed, but poetic. We could stick with the focus on Actions such as being, but then we lose our sacred Eternal Truths angle. We'll have to admit that Being happens, rather than is; no Este.
@@SolomonsCave And this is exactly why Heraclitus was correct about change and relativity. He gave us a Taoist-style wisdom that we didn't get back to until Nietzsche. Instead Parmenides, via Plato and Aristotle, won the war of conceptual framing and set the stage for Western Civilization and the internal organization of Christian polities and the hierarchical suppression of personal identity. Not that Heraclitus didn't have his major conceptual struggle, ironically, when he talked of struggle and strife but then went to play and have fun with the local kids. Struggle was seemingly irreducible, but it can be opposed to Play, and he knew it, but ...maybe... never made the connection. Fire will bring change, but so can playing with ideas. And I suppose Play and Struggle fall under the category Endeavor, Doing. ... another gerund. ... Logos is Logic, Discourse, etc., but the Big Logos is slippery to get ahold of... I call it Grammar.
if you connect this to the fact that the pass of time is an illusion, he might have been right... or not far away from correct. If you think that time does not move forward or in any possible direction, and that time, as a whole, exists 'at once' , well... we are born, we are adults, we are old, we are death already 'at once'. Its like if you cut a meter of rope, the meter of rope is always the same and just because you are able watch only 0.01 mm sections every second , it doesn't mean its changing.
This idea is a very reassuring way of seeing life and death. The living are always alive at some moments in time, always have been and will be. At other times there are their earthly remains which have likewise always existed forever. But it isn't possible for someone living to die.
How is the passing of time an illusion? I understand that people hypothesize about that, but it's simply not true for us in our practical lives. Our past is yesterday. Our future is tomorrow. Our now is here. You cannot escape that with logical games. And you can't say, 'oh, you just have bad vision;' that's a cop out. So what if there's an infinity between every whole number; I'll step right over it, as Parmenides did himself. See an arrow hanging in the air? Get off the PCP. Can't catch the turtle? That's all you.
@@floepiejane is hard to grasp. Humans perceive time like you describe it, going forward in a linear fashion. It doesn´t mean it is like that. The human perception is not the absolute truth. Humans can perceive the color red in a determinate way, but other species who can only see black and white perceive in a different way. Or some species cannot see at all. No one wants to "escape" time with logic. We are inevitably bound to it. But time, as everything and as Einstein concluded, is relative.
@@orlandocarrillo7132 the perception and experience of time is relative, not time itself.
@@floepiejane we will never know if there is an absolute version of things, as we will ever be bound to our human perception.
好东西
You're welcome.
It is however "the Philosophy of Being" not "the Philosophy of Bejing" :P
Solomon's Cave yeah，I know it. I love western philosophy so much
@@TheJanuary12312 There sure is a lot we can lear from each other :)
oh he would have hated quantum theory!
But the quantum theory exist also inside the observable universe and its not the arche, so no, Parmenides the boss, will be proven right sooner or later.
Good think Aristotle cleared this up. Parmenides is very unconvincing.
We'll hopefully get to Aristotle at some point, but remember that though he certainly took steps "forward" in philosophy and science, he was also wrong about basically everything :P
I'm not sure that Parmenides was fully answered (if at all) until Einstein's theory of general relativity.
What if 'being' is a 'creature' .. Of 'Creation'?
I like the way you're thinking.
Sounds like the Visual novels/Anime Chaos;Head and it's sequel Chaos;Child were drawing on Parmenides Philosophy a bit.
Cringe weeb
The smallest atomic unit of experience is a perception. What we experience are the qualities of our perceptions. The Mind derives meaning from the 'driving' qualities that change our inner state of Being as they change.
Is, is. Is not, is not.
Peripheral attention = wave like
Focused attention = particle like
They each had a piece of the Elephant.
Nice post. I do have a bunch of questions, if you don't mind. 1) By 'atomic' do you mean 'uncuttable' or 'pertaining to atoms'? 2) wouldn't 'experience' be a matter of Doing, before it is a matter of Thinking? 3) What do you mean by 'driving'? I have no idea here. Are you talking about Urges?
Thanks
@@floepiejane atomic is smallest unit of anything that retains the qualities of being that which it is a unit of. An atom if gold has all of the properties of the element called gold. Similarly, the smallest unit of a perception is a quality. Visual qualities include size, shape, color, distance, etc. Auditory qualities would include pitch, volume, distance, timbre, etc.Kinesthetic would include pressure, duration, intensity, etc.
Of the qualities present in a perception one to three of them will be 'drivers'. These qualities change our inner state of Being as they change. A visual driver for one person might be distance. As an image moves closer and gets bigger, they will accordingly feel better or worse. Volume might be a driver for another. Louder or quieter would make them enjoy it more or less. A kinesthetic driver might be pressure. More or less might feel better or worse.
I hope this helps. I can't really explain it more simply without the added words getting in the way.
Namaste'.
@@raycosmic9019 i appreciate it. I have much to think about.
After all I don't exist
You're frustrated, that's all.
@@rajarsi6438 I am
@@bhagirathraghav2192 Perhaps study & apply Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, reach total freedom of existence because of it.
7:36 cotton eye joe
platos parmenides dialogue is one of the profoundest text to ever be written
Hope to give it its own video one of these days :)
How so?
Is there a name for this eternal debate of deductive reasoning vs observation?
This is exactly the same conclusion i came to after studying philosophy for a couple years, It seems this truly is the essence of thought and manifests all throughout: As I see it, in all reality there is affirming thought: deduction, reason, idealism, which is subject to the limiting thought: observation, mitigation, skepticism. This is what i believe is the essence of yin and yang.
examples:
deduction vs induction
idealism vs materialism
optimism vs pessimism
a priori vs a posterori
analytic vs synthetic
rationalism vs empiricism
religion vs science
traditional reason vs enlightenment values
even religions:
Hinduism vs buddhism
Judaism vs Christianity and islam
even modern ideologies today:
conservatism vs liberalism
republican vs democrat
I think we have very similar ideas about philosophy, though I have different examples in mind:
Idealism vs. realism (Plato / Aristotle // Augustine / Thomas)
Rationalism vs. empiricism (Descartes / Locke)
Modernism vs. post modernism
As for religions, I can only really speak for Christianity, and both extremes are widely attested within it, but I also think that the belief that the unchangeable God became a changeable man is a very interesting doctrine to look at through this lens.
And in politics, I think we can dig even deeper.
On economic issues, the libertarian right (which has found a home in the Republican party) has individual freedom as its fundamental principle.
Then the progressive left (currently fighting for a place in the Democratic party) strongly believes in equality (of opportunity).
Both freedom and equality are good principles that correlate with the same two philosophies. But at some point, my freedom can take away someone else's equal opportunity, while absolute equality (especially of outcome) will diminish overall freedom.
@@SolomonsCave I agree with you basically 100%, though I would say Aristotle represents the shifting toward more empirical style philosophy. Whats interesting is that it always seems that in the history of Ideas, the rationalistic principle manifests first temporally. hindusim >> buddhism for example. Its as if the affirming principle shows up to set the stage for the empirical principle to come in to keep it honest and cut it back, the empirical principle always seems to criticize what the affirming principle has already created. Anyways, great video.
@@SolomonsCave ooo, interesting. Freedom and Equality... They both allude to the shift from Aristocracy to Democracy: freedom from the King, and all citizens with a voice in the government, equal representation. Freedom can also point to the ability to develop one's self and actually have a personality. Equality can also point to the need to eradicate corruption and exploitation. They go hand-in-hand in the service of spreading democracy. Imo, using them otherwise is sus.
Is there a name... Yes, Connor, it's called The Great False Dichotomy. They're actually not oppositional; they're two parts of analysis, two complimentary parts in the process of thinking. Then what's the disjunction here? I think it's that the framing of the situation is coming from the Idealists, and they don't trust their senses, and they think there's an inner essence of all things that our minds can't fathom - that only omniscience could ever hope to touch, and their real goal is Purity anyway, so they see "observation" as inherently flawed and petty. Of course they ignore the fact that without observation, their calculators won't have data. Knowledge implies knowing about something, after all. ... Question: why is observation limiting when its use brings in ever more information?
As for your Taoist tendencies, I'll offer this. We have three sets of Vinegar Tasters in front of us: the Oriental, the Occidental, and the Accidental. So, respectively, we have Lao Tzu, Confucius, and Buddha, then Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Aristotle, and finally Plato, Kant, and Hegel (with their fingers in Descartes's vat, his head looking around in confusion)...
Mandelbrot theory???? Fractals and string theory
I have absolutely no idea!
But I do know that these philosophers asked the kinds of questions that provoke the imagination and could very well have inspired the search for mathematical answers that ended up with the theories you mentioned.
So, what is a example of what is not? How are we thinking of something that is not if it is not?
holografic 2d universe
Prove parmenides wrong.... Still waiting
Logically there are infinite points between the beginnings and ends of an inch, but I can step over that infinity at any time. And, just try to race a turtle and lose, or stand in front of a flying arrow and live. Finally, 'nothing' is an abstract noun that signifies the lack of something, in this case, existence. But if you need more than that, then 'nothing' signifies that lack of space and time. Q. E. D.
I solved Zeno's Arrow Paradox.
Therefore, permedis is wrong in his philosophy.
There have been many proposed solutions, some more successful than others. However, the point of this video (as well as the one I did on Zeno) isn't so much to disprove their philosophy, but to get you to think about the questions they asked about the nature of reality. To think outside the box of the obvious and the simple.
@@SolomonsCave
I like to see the most successful solution of others.
What's your solution?
@@floepiejane I have no objection to publish self sponsored research findings.
@@godofgodseyes Sri Lanka, eh?
Parmenides asks the only relevant question. And can't be disproven
Yes, he can, and easily in fact, just look around you. He knew this. That's why he stacked the deck and had a goddess explain everything after putting down human rationality as mere opinion. This sounds like elitist propaganda to me, tbh.