That fucker Parmenides

[Anonymous No.18287224]

I bet there is no one in this board who has read Parmenides' poems and/or the platonic dialogue and completely understood what this fucker meant with his philosophy.


Also, fuck all philosophers who thought writing in literary form was a good way of writing philosophy.

Yeah Nietzsche, i'm taking about you. And Plato gets a pass because, unlike most wanna-be poet-philosophers, he actually knew how to write. Also more importantly, his more philosophic dialogues actually go pretty straight to the point of the argument.

[Anonymous No.18287252]

>no one understands Parmenides
Not if you are Heidegger-pilled and Severino-pilled

[Anonymous No.18287265]

>>18287224
literally kys
read no philosopher who is not also a poet

[Anonymous No.18287287]

> . For Severino, all the philosophies which have been formed up to now are characterised by one fundamental error, faith in the Greek sense of becoming. Indeed, since the ancient Greeks, a being (or anything which is) has been considered as coming from nothing, granted existence temporarily, and then returning into nothing. Severino, reflecting on the absolute opposition between Being and non-Being, given that between the two terms there is nothing in common, considers it evident that being can only remain constantly unchanging, not being changed by anything which is not itself. Thus, since Being is the totality of what exists, there can be nothing else besides it endowed with existence (Severino thereby refutes the concept of ontological difference as put forward by Heidegger). For Severino, therefore, the entire history of philosophy is based on the erroneous conviction that Being can become nothing.

[Anonymous No.18287681]

>>18287224

Yes, me:

>>>/lit/thread/S17259685
>The Monad and the many per Ne-Si and per Ni-Se are as, if not more, distinct as the Monad and the many are from each other in either perception. Per Ne-Si, the many relate mainly, possible exclusively, to each other, their relation to the Monad being one of at least quantitative deficiency, if not qualitative, whereby each of them is a "part of" the Monad, a continuous outside-in and bottom-up medium culminating in the "individual" of Yaldabaoth: the Monad itself becoming LESS than the sum of its parts, not even an apotheosis of medium at the expense of individuals but the end of medium and individual alike through their mutually-destructive interdependence. Per Ni-Se, the many relate mainly, possibly exclusively, to the Monad, their relation to each other being at least quantitatively tenuous, if not qualitatively so, whereby each of them resembles the Monad, a discrete inside-out and top-down individuation culminating in the "medium" of Pleroma: the Monad itself becoming an explosive subsuming of its parts, not even an apotheosis of the individual at the expense of the medium but the end of even their most fundamental Dyadic distinction through their mutually-dignifying independence.

[Anonymous No.18288120]

>>18287681
Ni-Se master race