/lit/ - Literature

The goal of philosophy is to find a continuous and commutative link between the two parts of the fragments of Parmenides. Evidently Parmenides himself was satisfied to separate aletheia and doxa without explaining either in terms of the other, but a way of connecting them is at least germinate in his thought. For it is possible he conceived his dualism of dark and night as arising from how people alternately perceive the One. This is similar to the Pythagorean theory, but the best surviving account of this theory is that of Zhou Dunyi. Wuji and Taiji form the supreme ultimate, they are both identical with it and with each other, they are the supreme polarity. The supreme polarity shifts in a continuous process between activity and stillness, i.e. yang and yin. IT is possible that Zhou Dunyi indeed provided a continuous account of how dark and night arise from the One, but he does not complete the transition because his account becomes discontinuous when explaining how yin and yang produce the five phases. In using the combinatoric method passed down from the Yijing to explain how the primordial duality produces the basic substances of physis, he assumes the existence of something that can perform the process of combining yin and yang in various ways. EVERY discrete process requires a continuous background to be conceivable. Because he supposes without explaining the existence of a process that can combine yin and yang to produce the five phases, Zhou Dunyi fails to explain how the One *alone* produces the realm of absolute interdependent plurality which we occupy. This illustrates why the link must be continuous. It must also be commutative, for if yin and yang are just different perspectives on the One, the perspectives must pre-exist or be simultaneous with the One in order for yin and yang to be produced. Thus, in order for the One to produce plurality, plurality must be simultaneous with the One; for it cannot pre-exist the One if it is produced by it. Hegel constantly struggles with the same error as Zhou Dunyi, but he seems to be subconsciously aware of it, because he pathologically attempts to remedy the discreteness of the science of logic through triadicity. But it is triadicity with only one level of thirds. There must be absolutely infinite thirds to reach true continuity, and therefore to truly join any two moments.

there is no flaw in his philosophy except explaining how what we observe is what he describes, but that isn't difficult to do with modern philosophical tools.

which philosopher do you think could take the biggest bong rip? be honest.

>>20930312
>bridges the is-is not gap
Nothing personnel, commoner

>>20408369
What is there to be said and thought must needs be: for it is there for being, but nothing is not. I bid you ponder that, for this is the first way of enquiry from which I hold you back, but then from that on which mortals wander knowing nothing, two-headed; for helplessness guides the wandering thought in their breasts, and they are carried along, deaf and blind at once, dazed, undiscriminating hordes, who believe that to be and not to be are the same and not the same; and the path taken by them all is backward-turning.

For never shall this be forcibly maintained, that things that are not are, but you must hold back your thought from this way of enquiry, nor let habit, born of much experience, force you down this way, by making you use an aimless eye or an ear and a tongue full of meaningless sound: judge by reason the strife-encompassed refutation spoken by me (pbuh).

There still remains just one account of a way, that it is. On this way there are very many sings, that being uncreated and imperishable it is, whole and of a single kind and unshaken and perfect.

It never was nor will be, since it is now, all together, one, continuous. For what birth will you seek for it? How and whence did it grow? I shall not allow you to say nor think from not being: for it is not to be said nor thought that it is not; and what need would have driven it later rather than earlier, beginning from the nothing, to grow? Thus it must either be completely or not at all. Nor will the force of conviction allow anything besides it to come to be ever from not being. Therefore Justice has never loosed her fetters to allow it to come to be or to perish, but holds it fast. And the decision about these things lies in this: it is or it is not. But it has in fact been decided, as is necessary, to leave the one way unthought and nameless (for it is no true way), but that the other is and is genuine. And how could what is be in the future? How could it come to be? For if it came into being, it is not: nor is it if it is ever going to be in the future. Thus coming to be is extinguished and perishing unheard of.

Nor is it divided, since it all exists alike; nor is it more here and less there, which would prevent it from holding together, but it is all full of being. So it is all continuous: for what is draws nears to what is.

But changeless within the limits of great bonds it exists without beginning or creasing, since coming to be and perishing have wandered very far away, and true conviction has thrust them off. Remaining the same and in the same place it lies on its own and thus fixed it will remain. For strong Necessity holds it within the bonds of a limit, which keeps it in on every side.

>>19931639
A lot, a firm understanding of the basics of most Presocratics is necessary to fully understand Plato and his context. A collection like Waterfield's "The First Philosophers" would be the bare minimum for background, I'd recommend something more in depth like McKirahan's "Philosophy Before Socrates."

>>18429311
>Maybe by "Being" you don't mean God though
And neither should you.

So everything is one but also nothing? Am I getting the ending of the dialogue correctly? Is it like Buddhism?

He cannot be refuted and most who attempt to are tryhards

I've read "On nature" and none of it makes any sense to me.

Parmigiano

So this guy is basically just Buddhism? All existence is merely nothingness?

What’s the best translation of On Nature /lit/?
>inb4 “Greek”
I’m learning it but I need to read this now

Everything is.

*Ahem*

Why can't existing things be created from other existing things? And then: why can existing things be created from metaphysical things?

>>14860205
>ahem

Why do people say 'Parmenides' is Plato's best work? Besides the 'Third Man Argument', the work to me appears as being absolutely ridiculous. A large part of it is impenetrably dense, and boring wordplay that is so dumb to even consider seriously. I fail to see the work's true significance. pls red pill me on its philosophical importance and why i'm wrong with my regard

>>14607144
Eternity precedes transience, actuality precedes potentiality, order precedes chaos. In the end there is only One. Every and any attempt to reconcile the two is cope

>>14606939
>There exists only the present instant... a Now which always and without end is itself new.
based and red-piled

Who are the pre-Socratics one needs to read in order to advance? Really I feel like Parmenides and Heraclitus are the only ones necessary because Monism and Pluralism.

>>14481660
>It describes something fundamental about the world i.e. change
>change
The absolute state of this lad LMAO

For Parmenides, in order to prove monism, one must consider their senses to be 'illusory' and that change is only observed by the senses.

If this is the case then why would one even do anything to prove monism? Since senses are illusory, then what is the sense of writing or speaking about anything if the other interprets you in a false way?

It is self-defeating.

You realize the idea of a ‘new year’ has been retroactively refuted, right?