The Parmenidian Problem

1643 Words4 Pages

The Parmenidian Problem

It is often attempted, in the pursuit of inner fulfillment, to understand the nature of being and how it comes to be. Pre-Socratics, such as Parmenides, simply ignore the nature of becoming because they cannot give a logical explanation of it. Other philosophers, such as Plato, attempt to render the problem by attributing it to a higher realm, beyond man. Still other philosophers, such as Aristotle, will truly understand the nature of becoming and why the other philosophers could not understand it.

Parmenides says that there are two ways of inquiry: is and is not, ". . . the decision about these matters lies in this: it is or it is not," (Fr. 8, ln 14-16). However, he rejects the "is not" because he concludes that the method is unlearnable and unthinkable since it is not possible to know that which is not. If it were possible for that which is "is not" to exist, then, in actuality, it "is not" is "is." In other words, "is not" is beyond the realm of our capabilities of comprehension and thus, unknowable. The one that "is" is the way of persuasion because it depends on truth. The one that "is not" is the way of the Doxa, the beliefs or opinions held by man. Parmenides claims that the way of the Doxa is false because it depends on ". . . the opinions of mortals, in which there is no true reliance," (Fr. 1, ln 29). Man's senses cannot be trusted because they can lead to falsehoods. A person can perceive through the senses a thing one way, while another perceives the same thing differently. For example, a man can taste an apple and claim that it is sour. Mean while, another man can taste the same apple and claim its sweetness rather than its sourness. Therefore, relying on the senses lead...

... middle of paper ...

...blem. What Plato has done is simply put the problem in the realm of the ethereal. Even by doing this, he does not give a solution as to how becoming can exist. He has merely just explained how there can exist more than one characteristic in one thing.

Therefore, Aristotle solves the problem of becoming by distinguishing the fact that there are three principles of change. Within the generation from nonbeing, there are exists two types -- a substantial change and an accidental change. The hypokeimenon underlies these changes. When Socrates turns from pale to red, it is an accidental change, because Socrates as a man is underlying this change. But when a statue comes from unformed bronze, it is a substantial change, because the substance changes. However, the underlying thing is the bronzeness of it. Thus, becoming exists and is knowable. It is because it is.

Open Document