The vision of Parmenides.pdf

8/10/2019 The vision of Parmenides.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-vision-of-parmenidespdf 1/13

hilosophical Review

The Vision of ParmenidesAuthor(s): J. E. BoodinSource: The Philosophical Review, Vol. 52, No. 6 (Nov., 1943), pp. 578-589Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2181260 .

Accessed: 15/10/2014 22:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Duke University Press and Philosophical Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Philosophical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:39:57 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=philreview

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2181260?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2181260?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=philreview

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke



THE VISION OF PARMENIDES

WA S

Parmenides a poet?

The commentators

ave made it

clear that

theydo not

regardhim as a

poet but rather

s

a

dry logician.But why did he express himself n poetryand in

hexameters, he

stately tyleof the epic poets?

It cannot

be said

to have been

the fashionfor

a philosopher-scientist

o use poetry.

Parmenides' predecessors,

who wrote books-Anaximander,

Anaximenes,

nd Heraclitus-had

used prose,

at any rate

what

had the form f prose. Xenophanes,

o be sure,

expressedhimself

in

poetry. ut

he was a rhapsodist,

ot a systematic

hilosopher.

Parmenides, s the prologueof his poem shows,had a revela-

tion. In

a great

vision he saw

himselfpassing from night

nto

the ight.

The speaker n thepoem is the goddess

of truth,

nd a

goddess might uitablyuse the

form of speech

of the gods

in

Homer and

Hesiod. But whyshould a goddess

speak except that

it

is

a

revelation?

s therenothing

oetic n Parmenides' hought?

The first artof the poem

may not seem poetic

to us. But

may

it not have seemed o to youngParmenides?For according o the

prologuehe

was a youthwhen

the revelation

ame to

him.

May

it not be that

the vision whichcame to him has

been obscured

by

the

presentation?

Being ushered from night

into the light

is

certainly oetic.

But what did he see? The difficulty

s that,

n-

stead of directly iving s his

vision,he first ives

us a rationaliza-

tion

of

it.

His vision was of It. But what is

It? In the first

art

of thepoemhe is mainly oncernedwithwhat t is not.

The commentatorsave certainly

een wrong

n saying that

t

is being,meaning

by being what

everything as

in commonwith

everything lse,

since we can

use the predicate, o be,

of

every-

thing. uch

a

concept s an anachronism

n the

age of

Parmenides.

Socrates

first

iscovered r

createdthe

concept.And the general

concept

of being was firstmaintained

s a substantive or theo-

logical reasons in the MiddleAges when God was characterized

as

beingand

as the Being in an absolute ense.

For Plato being

(reality), on,

means form,which for him is

the real in contrast

to becoming,

which s non-being.

or Aristotle eing s adjectival.

It

is not

reality ousia). It is

unhistorical nd absurd to suppose

that the

It

of

Parmenides s

the conceptof

being. John

Burnet

578







THE

VISION

OF

PARMENIDES

579

points out

that

the

word,

being,

does

not occur in

Parmenides'

poem.

Parmenides

ould

not

think n

abstractions.

e

was

obliged

to think n physical anguage.

Parmenides

tates

the

argument

t

the

beginning'

f

the

poem

Come

now,

I

will

tell

thee-and

do

thou

harken to

my

saying

and

carry it

away-the

only

two

ways

of

search

that

can be

thought

f.

The

first,

amely,

hat t

is,

and

that t

is

impossible

for

it

not

to

be,

is

the

way

of

belief,

for

truth

s

its

companion.

The

other,

namely,

hat

t

is

not,

and

that t

must

needs

notbe-

that I tell thee, s a path thatnone can learn at all. For thou

canst

not

know

what

is

not-that

is

impossible-nor

utter

t;

for

it is

the

same

thing

hat

an

be

thought

nd

thatcan

be. 2

Aristotle

refers

to

the

argument f

Parmenides

as

a

merely

contentious

rgument-a

description

which

applies

to

the

argu-

ments

both

of

Melissus

and

Parmenides:

their

premisses

are

false

and

their

onclusions

o

not

follow. 8He

further

omplains

thattheyshow no respectfor fact. So it has seemedto others.

But

we

must

udge

Parmenides

n

his

own

context.

The funda-

mental

postulate

to

use

later

language)

for

Parmenides

s

that

the

real

is

thinkable

nd

that

what

is

unthinkable

s

nonexistent.

When

you

think,

ou

must

lways

think

omething;

nd

something

means

a

physical

thing.

That

would

be

admitted

n

Parmenides'

day. In

number,

armenides

ould not

think

ero.

It

was not

until

some time n theMiddleAges thatzero as a numberwas intro-

duced into

European

thought

y

way

of

the

Arabs.

Parmenides

could

not think

empty

pace

as

distinctfrom

body,

though

he

unintentionally

romoted

he

discovery

y

making

he

distinction.

Leucippus,

n

the

next

generation,

eeing

hat

pace

was

necessary

for

motion

nd

accepting

motion

s

fact,

declared

that

non-being

(space)

exists

as

truly s

being

(body).

And so

we

have

what,

according oEinstein, rethetwofundamentaloncepts fphysics

-matter

and

space.

Space

could

only

be

discovered

when

it

was

recognized

hat

t is

no

sensible

thing.

Time,

for

Parmenides, s

not

a

physical

thing;

and

it

is,

therefore,

onexistent.

ast

and

future

do

not

exist.

There is

only

the

present.

The

true

meaning

1

Frs.

4, 5.

3John

Burnet's

ranslationn

Early

Greek

Philosophy,

ourth

d.,

p.

I73.

Other

translations,

nless

otherwise

ndicated,

re

from

hesamesource.'Physics

I85aio,

trans.R. P. HardieandR. K. Gaye.







580

THE

PHILOSOPHICAL

REVIEW

[VOL.

LII.

of

time

has

been

long

waiting

for a

discoverers

The

meaning f

non-being

s

difference

as to

be

developed

ater

by

Plato

in

the

Sophist. It is no wonder, herefore,hatno-thing s unthinkable

for

Parmenides.

The

positive

side of

the

postulate

is

that

what

is

thinkable

exists.

Hegel

was to

expressthe

same

idea

many

centuries

ater

in

his

postulate:

the

real is

the

rational.

And

like

Parmenideshe

converted t

simply

nto

the

thinkable

r

rational s

real.

And so

we

have

the

ontological

argument

which

Parmenides

was

the

first o state: It needs mustbe thatwhat can be spokenand

thoughts;

for

t

is

possible

for t

to

be,

and it

is

not

possible

for

what

is

nothing o

be. 5

What

Parmenides

ays

about t,

Leibniz

says

about

God. The

idea

of

God

is

possible

and

involves

no

con-

tradiction;

herefore

God

exists.

It

is

true

that

whatis

thinkable

varies in

different

istorical

contexts.

But

for

Parmenides

the

conviction

hat

the

thinkable

xists

and

that

the

unthinkable oes

not existhad momentous onsequences.

-Parmenides

ad a

fundamental

ntuition

when

he

felt

that,

n

order

for

knowledge

o

be

possible,

there

must

be

constancy.

f

there is

no

constancy

here

can

be

no

reference,

o

discourse.

Parmenides'

constancy

meant

thing-constancy,

onstancy

f

sub-

stance.

And

ever

since

Parmenides

cience

has

been

in

search of

thing-constants.

armenides

could not

see that

therecan

be con-

stants n change.That was the next step in science. t was the

step of the

pluralists n

the

generation

fter

Parmenides-Em-

pedocles,

Anaxagoras,

and

Leucippus.

It was

Leucippus'

atomism

which

was destined o

have a

long

career. The

concept

f atomic

constants

has

undergone transformation

n

recent

times.

The

constants ave

become

lectrons,

rotons,

eutrons,

tc.

But science

is

still

ookingfor

thing-constants.

here

is another

ype

of

con-

stancy, irst uggestedbyHeraclitus-the constancy r repetition

of

function:

You cannot

step

twice

into

the

same rivers

for

fresh

waters are

ever

flowing

n

upon

you.

And: We

step

and

4

had an

intuition

bouttime n

my

youthwhich

triedto

put into

a

doctor'sthesis,

A

Theoryof

Time,

at

Harvard,

n

i8W,

and

afterwards

tried o

explain n

a

monograph,

ime and

Reality,

n

904,

and

as

part V

of

A

Realistic

Universe,9i6,

etc.;

but,while

Josiah

Royce

gave

me credit

for

having

discovered

new

concept,he

concept

as not

otherwise

ene-

tratedthe

fortificationsf the

academic

mind.What

I

saw

makes Par-

menides' isionan illusion. ' Fr. 6.







No.

6.]

THE

VISION

OF

PARMENIDES

581

do

not

step

ntothesame

rivers.

The

important

hing

s thecon-

stancy f

the

measures of

transformation. e

would

say

meas-

ures of energy.This type of constancys themorefundamental

but

is

foreign

o

Parmenides,

ince

he could

think

onlyin

static

terms.

till we must

credit

Parmenides

with

first

mphasizing

he

importance f

constancy

or

thinking.

Thinking

requires

unityor

coherence n

the

object.

For Par-

menides

unity

means

identity-identityn

the

spatial

present,

since past

and

future re

nonexistent.

oherence

means a

physical

continuum.he It mustbe an absolute ontinuum.We must redit

Parmenides

with

first

efining

physical

continuum.

A

physical

continuummeans

nothing-between.

he

mathematical

ontinuum,

which

was

probably

irst

efined y

Aristotle,

means

that

there s

nonext.

n a

linear

ontinuum,

here

s

alwaysa

point

between

ny

two

points, owever

hosen, d

infinitum.

ven

when

you ntroduce

the

further

onceptionof a

cut

which

is common

to

the

two

divisions, still the series is discrete.There is no next. For

Parmenides t is

indivisible.

t is not

only

absolutelyfull but

absolutely

dentical

throughout.

his means

that

there

can

be

no

variety.

There

can be no

coming

ntobeingor

passing

away,

being and

not-being,

hange

of

place and

alterationof

bright

colour .6

t

does credit

o

Parmenidesthat he

saw

the

efficiency

of

color

in

marking

hingsoff-a

fact

which

Gestalt

psychology

has recently ecognized.n short,for Parmenides,you can only

think he

same,

which

means the

spatially,

ternally

ame.

It

is

the

rony

f

Parmenides'definition

f It

thatwhenhe

gets

through

e

has

precisely-empty pace,

so far

as

the

first

art

of

the

poem

is

concerned. mean

physical

pace-the space of

New-

ton

and

Einstein,

not the

mathematician'space.

Parmenides'

continuum

may be

compared

with

Einstein's

space-ether:

The

ether f thegeneral heory f relativitys a mediumwhich s void

of

all

mechanical

nd

kinematical

ualities.

.

This

ether

may

not

be thought

f as

endowed

with

the

quality

characteristic

f

ponderable

media,

as

consisting

f

parts

that

may

be tracked

through

ime.The

idea

of

motion

may

not be

applied

to

t. 7

I

do

not

think

this is all

of

Parmenides'

vision

of It. But

it is

all

that

he

describes n the first

art of the

poem.

Frs.

8,40.

'A.

Einstein,

idelights

n

Relativity

g,

20.







582

THE PHILOSOPHICAL

REVIEW

[VOL.

LII.

I

cannot

gree

with

Aristotle

nd

others

hatParmenides'

rgu-

ment is merely

unconscious

ophistry.

His basic

postulate

that

you mustalways thinksomething,meaning somethingmaterial,

and itscorollary

hat

you

cannotthink

non-being,

meaning

ome-

thing

immaterial,

was

historically

rue,

though

progress

could

only be

made

when

science discovered

he

immaterial-the

pace

of Leucippus

and

the forms

of Plato.

He made

a

permanent

contribution

n emphasizing

hat

there

can

be no thinking

nless

there

s

constancy.

f the

world

were

annihilated

very

moment,

eventhough reated new thenext instant as Malebranche up-

posed),

there

could

be no science

of nature,

though

constancy

does not

mean stopping

he universe.

Plato

called

the Eleatics

stoppers f

the universe .)

There

must be coherence

n

nature.

Nature

cannot consist

in absolute,

unrelated

bits if

we are to

describe t. But

the

unity annot

be

a homogeneous

hysical

on-

tinuummerely, hough

physical

pace

is such a

continuum.

ar-

menideshad the right ntuitionwhenhe insisted hattheremust

be community

etween

hought

nd

its object,

or, as

he

puts

it,

it is the

samethat

can

be thought

nd that

can

be , though

hat

does

not

mean

identity

s

he

supposed.

He saw the

close relation

of thought

o language,

for

you cannot

find

thought

without

something

hat s, as

to which

t

is uttered .

armenides'

postulate

that

he

real is intelligible

s a

general

postulate

f science,

hough

that does not mean that reality s intelligiblen termsof past

concepts.

Nor does

it

mean that

the logically

possible

necessarily

exists.

His

general

postulate,

x nihilonihil

fit,

rom othing

omes

nothing,

s true n the

ense

that

nature

does not

work

by

magic.

n

retrospect,

t anyrate,

we can

describe

he

conditions.

t

is nottrue

in

the

sense

that here

an be no

novelty,

o

emergence,

n

nature.

Such a

supposition

s contradicted

y

plain

facts.

We

may

say

that

Parmenides reated hefirst bsolutemonism,

what

William

James

called

a

block universe .

And

it is to

his

credit

hat he had

the

courage

o

carry

ut

his conviction

o

the

imit,hough

he

unthink-

ing might

augh.

It

was

the

mission

of his

younger

friend,

eno,

to

turn he

aughter

n

the

scorners.

However

thoroughly

e

must

disagree

with

Parmenides,

we

mustreverence im forhis

sincerity.

And

Plato's

Socrates bears

witness

to

the fact

that

Parmenides

was

revered.







No.

6.]

THE

VISION OF

PARMENIDES

583

The It at the

end of

part one of

the

poem is

a

homogeneous

physical

ontinuum,

ound by

necessity ntoan

eternal

globe.

We

are toldnothingbout tsnaturefurtherhan that t is a thinking

It

as well

as an

extensive t. Like

Spinoza's

attribute f

physical

extension, t is

indivisible.

n fact, the

nearest we come

to

Parmenides' t

of thefirst

art of

the

poem, in later

history,

s

Spinoza's

thought-endowed

hysical

extension.

You may say

that all

this is

verydry

and

prosy and

does not

merit

xpression

n

hexameters. ut

if it

burstupon you

as a

dis-

covery n youryouth nd in theyouthof science,you too might

have felt

poetic.

Parmenides'vision

can

only be

real to us when

we

find

what the It

is

which he

has been

tryingto

explain.

Curiously,

he

reveals

thevision of

It in

the

secondpart

of

the

poem

which s

supposed to

deal with

whatisn't.

We can

better

understand

what Parmenides means

by It, if

we

try to

see his place

in the

developmentf

thought

p

to

his

time. What does he owe to his predecessors?We must not

expect

him to express

his

indebtedness.That

is rare

among

philosophers nd

is

unknown

mongthe

early

Greek

philosophers.

At

most,

pposition s

expressed.

Parmenides

mentions

o

names.

But in the

prologuehe

promises,

hrough

he

goddess,to give a

full

account of

the

situation

n the

thought f

his time.

Meet

it is

that

thou shouldst

earn

all things,

s well

the

unshaken

heart of well-roundedruth s theopinionsof mortals n which

is

no truebelief

at all.

Yet

none the less

shalt

thou

learnthese

things lso-how

passingright

hroughll

things ne

should

udge

the

things hat

seem to

be.

There is

distinct

eference

o

four

predecessors-Anaximander,

Anaximenes,

Xenophanes,

and

Heraclitus.

From

Anaximander

e gotthe

bands of

fire

nd night.

The

narrowbands

were filled

with

unmixedfire, nd those next

themwithnight, nd in the midstof themthere rushes their

portion f

fire. 8

he

idea of earth s

dark

night,

compact nd

heavy

body , s

an echoof

Anaximenes.

Justice, s

keeping

hings

in

bounds

(Anaximanderand

Heraclitus), is replaced

by

the

more

naturalistic dea of

Necessity.

To

Xenophanes

he

owes

something

more

fundamental.

armenides

is

reported

to have

heard

Xenophanes .

Of

disciples

we cannot

speak

among

the

8Fr.

i2.







584

THE

PHILOSOPHICAL

REVIEW

[VOL.

LII.

early

Greek

thinkers.

ristotle's

tatement

bout Xenophanes'

n-

tuition

hat

he,

gazing

up

at

thewhole heavens (ouranos)

said

theOne was God ,fitsn,we shall see, with he t of Parmenides.

Xenophanes'

vision

of

one

godwho

sees

all over,

thinks ll

over,

and

hears

all over ,

who

without

oil

swayeth

ll thingsby

the

thought

f

his

mind ,

nd who abideth ver n the self

ame place,

moving

not

at

all , certainly

as

kinship

o

the t

of

Parmenides,

though

Parmenides

s too

naturalistic

o use

the

term,

God.

Parmenides'

greatest

ndebtedness,

owever,

s

to

Heraclitus,

thoughhe is the only one whomhe criticizes.That is not an

unusual

phenomenon

n

philosophy.

Classical

illustrations

re

Aristotle's

attitude

to Plato

and

Hegel's

attitude

to

Schelling.

Parmenides

s indebted

o

Heraclitus

n

a

twofold

way.

Heraclitus

had

expressed

most

brilliantly

he

principle

of

transformation

with

its

upward

and

downward

path

which

only

undiscerning

crowds

could

accept.

Heraclitus

had

furnished

he

capital

illus-

trationof non-being. or Parmenides,Heraclitushad made all

thought

mpossible,

oreverything

s

in flux.

But there

was

also

that

n

Heraclitus

which

commended

tself

o Parmenides,

hough

of

course

he gave

no

creditfor

that.

Cosmic

fire

s

theultimate

substance

nd

theultimate

eason

in

the

world

was

seized

upon

by

Parmenides,

s we

shall

see.

The

rest

was

lumped

together

as

night

or non-existent,

hich

means

untruth.

Thereis no indication f PythagoreanismnParmenides'poem.

Certainly,

umerical

ualism

or pluralism

hould

have

been

con-

demned,

unless

Parmenides

kept silent

for

personal

reasons-

which

s not

n keeping

with

his straightforwardedness.

he

dual-

ism

of

the

imited

nd

theunlimited

s

doubtless

later

develop-

ment,

but at any

rate

it would

have

been

unspeakable

for

Parmenides.

Burnet

sums

up our

knowledge

of

ancient

Pytha-

goreanism: The entirehistoryof the Pythagoreans p to the

end

of

the

fifth

entury

B.C.

is certainly

onjectural .

I think

we can understand

Parmenides'

poem

without

any

speculative

reference o Pythagoreanism,

hough

o doubt

the

poem

exercised

great

influence

n Pythagoreanism.

We must

now try

to discover

what

Parmenides

means

by

It.

I

thinkParmenides

has

made

it plain

in

the

second

part

of the

9

Op.

cit.

185.







No. 6.] THE

VISION

OF

PARMENIDES

585

poem.

The reason

he did not

make it clear at the

outsetwas

that

he had

an

exaggerated aith n

logic.And,therefore,

e

suppressed

thebasic intuitionwithoutwhich his logic, as always is thecase,

gives

himonly

what he has

implied n his

assumptions.t does

not

touch

reality.n

part wo he

deals with xperience nd

what

cience

had

disclosedabout it. In his

own

language,he deals with

the

opinions

of mortals ,

ncludinghis own.

Mortals have

made up

their mind to

name two forms,

ne

of

whichthey

hould not

name, and that s where

theygo

astray

from he truth. hey havedistinguished,hem s opposite n form,

and

have assigned

to themmarks distinct

romone

another.

To

the

one theyallot

the fire f

heaven,gentle,very

ight,

n

every

direction

he same

as itself,

but not the same as -the

other.The

other s

just theoppositeto it,

dark

night,

compact nd heavy

body. 10 his

seems

plain

enough o anyintelligent

eader.

Of

the

two

forms he first,the fire

of heaven ,

s the one

that

mortals

shouldhave named.The other, dark night ,mortals houldnot

have

named. How can we tell

which of

the two

formsmortals

shouldname? Has

not

Parmenides old us

in theprologue hat

he

had

been usheredfromnight

nto the

light?The truthhad

been

revealed

o him.

Night nd light

re notmetaphors or

Parmenides.

Light is a physical

reality,

nd night s

its oppositewhich

must

be

banished.Lightis truth nd

night s

error.When

we

examine

his characterizationf the fire f heaven we find hat t agrees

withwhat he has

been trying

o say in

more formal anguage

aboutthe t in the

first art:

gentle, ery

ight,

n

every

direction

the

same

as itself, ut not the

same as the

other. Here we

recog-

nize the

cosmic fire f

Heraclitus-not the

firewhich

enters

nto

transformationut

the fireto

whichHeraclitus refers when

he

says:

Wisdom is apart from all. ' Fire-wisdom

s set over

againsteverythinglse. But it is also assertedby Heraclitus that

thoughts

common o

all .12 t

is

the

same fire-soul

hich

thinks

in everyone.

Wisdom is the

common, n

the sense that t is the

same for

all.

In

a

somewhat bscure

fragment,

armenides

tells

us: That which

thinks s the

same

in

each and every

man.

That

reads almost ike a

quotation.

n either

ase it

is

the fire hat

s

the

same. We

are

informed

y

Theophrastus

hatParmenides

held

10

Second

part, 3-60.

1

Fr. i8.

12

Fr.

gia.







586

THE

PHILOSOPHICAL REVIEW

[VOL. LII.

that it is the proportion

f the warm

and cold in man that de-

termines he character

f-their hought,

o that ven corpsesfrom

whichthe warmhas been removed, etaina perception f what

is cold and dark .13

Heraclitus could

have said

the same.

Hera-

clitus and

Parmehides

re in agreement

hat it is only by fire-

wisdom

that we

have a knowledge f

the order of nature.

The

differences that

Parmenides rules out time and process

from

reality s something

nmentionable. nly

the eternal exists. So

impressivewas Parmenidesthat philosophy

as mostlyfollowed

him in treating imeas phenomenal ,which s true of the con-

cept

of

time which

philosophy nd science

have had.

When it first

flashed upon my mind

what Parmenideshad

really said, I was

not conscious that Aristotle had seen

the

same thing thoughhe did not developthe

mplications).Aristotle

had

the advantage

of havingthe wholepoem beforehim,whereas,

of

the second part,

we have only a fewdisconnected ragments.

Aristotle ays: He asserts that thereare two causes and two

first rinciples, eat

and cold, or as he

calls them,fire nd earth';

of

these he regardsheat as being, ts

opposite as not-being.

14

Again, in the Physics

we are told:

Parmenides treats hot and

cold as principles

under the names of 'fire and earth'. 5

The

reader will note that

Aristotle s quoting fireand earth

from

Parmenides. Aristotle

s not always a sympathetic ritic,

but

no one has accusedhim of being n outrightiar. So whenhe says

that

he

quotes,

we mustbelieve him.

That Aristotlehad Parmen-

ides'

poem before

him is indicatedby at least three formal

quotations beside

the above) in the

Metaphysics.

Burnet refused

to

take Aristotle

at

his word.

Aristotle's

identification

f

these

hot

and

cold)

with

fire nd earth

s,

how-

ever, misleading,

houghTheophrastus

followedhim

in it.

Sim-

plicius who had thepoembeforehim,aftermentioning ire and

Earth,

at once

adds

'or rather

Light

and

Darkness',

and this

is

suggestive. 16

Yes,

it

is

suggestive

f

the

Pythagorean

bias

of

13 John

Burnet,

p.

cit.

i92,

i93.

I

Metaphysics,

87ai,

2.

Trans.

by

Arthur

airbanks

n

The

First

Philo-

sophers

of

Greece,

quoted n M. C.

Nahm,

Selections

fromEarly Greek

Philosophy

20.

1 Physics,

88a2o, rans.

R.

P. Hardie and R.

K. Gaye.

' Op. cit. i85, i86.







No. 6.] THE

VISION

OF PARMENIDES

587

Simplicius

n

the

sixthcentury

A.D. Simpliciusdoes not say that

he got

his substitutionf lightand darkness from

Parmenides'

poem. Obviously it is an interpretation. ow Simplicius was

misled

by his Pythagorean ias is evidentfromthe

fact, which

Burnet

points out, that he

identified armenides'

goddess who

steers

the course of things with the

PythagoreanHestia or

centralfire,while

Theophrastus could not do that

because he

knew and stated that

Parmenides describedthe

earth as round

and in the

centre f the

world. '7 Parmenides ould

not possibly

haveheard of the central ire s it is a latedevelopmentn ancient

Pythagoreanism.implicius

nd Proclus are unsatisfactoryuides

becausetheyhave absorbed he

Pythagorean radition.

ne would

think

hatBurnet's evidence

that Simplicius

misinterpreted

ar-

menides o suit his

Pythagorean rejudice in the

case of Hestia

should

have made

him

sceptical

when Simplicius ubstituteslight

and darkness

for fire and earth, in spite of

Aristotle's

and

Theophrastus' evidence to the contrary.Burnethas a further

difficulty

ith Aristotle. Aristotle's dentificationf

the dense

elementwith what is not',

the unreal of the First

Part of the

poem,

is

not easy to reconcile

with the view that

it

is

earth. '8

Not if we

interpret armenides'

t as a solid, spherical

ump

of

matter,

s Burnet

does,

The

evidence s conclusive

hat Parmenides' ontrast

s that

of

fireand earth. That Parmenidesmeans earth we need no more

evidencethan we have

in

the

extant

fragment:

The

other

is

just oppositeto it, dark night,

compact nd heavy

body.

That

would

be Anaximenes'

way

of

characterizing

he

earth.

But

why

did

Parmenides

choose

earth

to

stand

for

the

whole

realm

of

what

s

not? We

learn

from

Theophrastus

hat Parmenides was

the

first

o

declarethat

the

earth

s

spheroidal

nd

situated

n

the

middleof the universe .'9The discovery f the spheroidal hape

of

the earth

was

capital.

We find lso that

Parmenides

observed

that the moon

shines with reflected

ight

nd

revolves

round

the

earth.

Theophrastus

does

not

seem

to

regard

that observation s

first

declared -

by Parmenides, though

it

bears evidence of

Parmenides

being

an

observer nd not

merely logician.

f

we

I

Op. cit.

Igo.

18

p.

cit. I%.

'Fr. 6a, Fairbanks' ranslation,uotedby Nahm.







588

THE

PHILOSOPHICAL

REVIEW

[VOL.

LI1.

can

reconstruct

armenides'

discovery

f

the

spheroidal

hape of

the

earth,

twould

throw

ight

upon

his

dualismof

fire nd

earth.

I think hat t is highly robablethat Parmenidesdiscovered he

spheroidal

hape of

the

earthfrom

watching

he

shadow

which

he

earth

casts

upon the

heavens

at

twilight.

We

can

now

conclude

our

argument,

which we believe

to

be

Parmenides'

argument.The

fire of

heaven

is

the

It,

the

truly

existent,

s it

is

also

the

truth

f

existence.At

twilight

we

can

see for

ourselves

how the

earth

darkens

the sky,

shuts

off

the

fire f heaven.The earthwhich s the cause of thedarkness-and

is in

factthe

darkness-included

for

Parmenides, s it does

for

us

who

watch

the

same

phenomenon,ll

that s

part

of

the

earth,

not

only

the

solid

core

but

water

and

mist. It is

all

the

earth's

shadowor

darkness.We

have here

the

keyto

Parmenides'

ualism

of

fire nd

earth.

The

white,

homogeneous

ight

of

heaven

is

It.

Color

and all

other

variety s

excluded

by

Parmenides,

because

he requires heunity f It in orderto thinkt, and unityforhim

must

be a

physical

continuum

uch as

white

ight

seems

to be.

(Newton

first

iscovered

hat

white

ight s

composite.)

It is a

long

way

from

Parmenides

o

the

latest

cience.But

we

too

stand

before

the

mysteryf

light.

The

fire

of

heaven

is a

good

expression

for

what

physics

today

means by

light.

But

Heraclitus

obviously

has

the

advantage

over

Parmenides

because

he recognizesthat firemust be fed, thoughthe matterwhich

feeds

t

s itself

degraded

form

f

fire.Of

course

for

Parmenides

light

does not

move.

And

there

s a

mystery

or

us, too,

about

the

movement

f

light. t

does

not

move

in

the

relative

sense,

and that

is

the

only

motionwe

know.

Light

engrosses

physics

today, s

it

did

Parmenides, s

the

ultimate

t.

Was

Parmenides

poet'?

By

gazing at the

heavenhe

saw,

what

everyone sees, that the fireof heaven is a globe. That was

the

way

he

really

got

the

idea.

The

rationalization

hatthe

uni-

verse

is

bounded

because

it

does

not

want for

anything

was a

weak

afterthought.

e

saw the

sphere

of

light

whichthe

globular

shadow20

f

night

which

is

the

earth)

at

times

obscures.

Seeing

the

light he

saw

the

truth

which

is

the

same

thing.

Banish

the

'Later

the

earth's

shadow

was

seenas

conical,

butthat

s

a

matter f

perspective. have foundthat the naive observersees the shadow as

spheroidal,s

Parmenidesaw

it.







No.

6.]

THE

VISION OF

PARMENIDES

589

darkness,

which s

unreality,nd

the

t

shinesforth

n its

glory.

That is

certainly

thrillingdea.

Parmenidesfelt

that he

was

a

poet,butperhapsonlya poet could recognize t.

It

should,

perhaps,

be added

as

a

postscript

hat,

after his

youthful ision

and

attempt

t

poetry,

armenides

ettled

down

to

become

a

very

substantial itizen

of

Elea

and

was

revered

by

his

fellow-citizens

ho

not

only

entrusted

im

with

making

aws

for Elea but

swore

by

them

for

many

generations.We

also

know

that,

hough

he lived to

a

good old

age,

he

never ost

faith

n his

youthful ision. n Greece, n thefifthentury .C., a philosopher

did not

lose

face

by

being

a

poet.

J. . BOODIN

UNIVERSITY

OF

CALIFORNIA

AT

Los

ANGELES

Documents

The vision of Parmenides.pdf