3) The Eleatic Monists - Parmenides and Zeno

hey everybody welcome you're almost there you almost you almost to a three-day weekend precious few breaks in the fall right that pathetic little fall break that's just like what two days long or something it's talking to somebody the other night about this like why don't why don't we get a full week like in the spring it's I need that week I love that week that week is it just me in the spring like if you're not for spring break I don't know if I'd make it okay today we're talking about the Ellie addict monists eleatic Monas why don't we call them the Ellie attic moan as well because they're bonus and they're from Eliot right so and it's a very particular brand of monism it's a little different than we've seen so far matter of fact everybody that we've seen so far can be classified I think or a more or less loosely in some form of monism possible exception thereof Heraclitus but even even him we could squeeze them in somehow help me run down the list who we talked about so far there's the Malaysians who are they Bailey's Anaximander and annex M&E is okay good and then after that there was Pythagoras and the Pythagorean is it clear how all of them could be classified as monists yeah yeah so the the my legions as material monists like we were sketchy about the materialism part for for Anaximander but he's still a monist right everything is the apparent and Bailey's everything is water there's the monism and an axe M&E is everything is air and there's the monism Pythagoras everything is mathematical ratio again like 1:1 sort of thing right so another monus mathematical bonus perhaps and then we might say whoa whoa there Pythagoras but aren't there many numbers and then we might be like oh yeah right now there's a puzzle yeah there's a soul and it's immortal but we might also like we have not a whole lot of elaboration on what the nature that soul is we might get some version of that from Plato specifically in fado when we start talking about the nature of the soul or what Socrates thinks the nature of the soul is or what Plato the words that Plato is putting into Socrates his mouth about what the nature of the soul is and I believe I mentioned if not last time then when we were talking about the Pythagorean that there a huge influence on Plato in fact after Socrates dies he goes and studies with the pythagoreans he goes to Italy for a little while and stays there for a while yes and the the material motifs and and just something else yeah what would be the difference between like a materialistic arc a that the sort that we talked about the the my legions adopting and an abstract sort of arcade they havethey they kind of work in Reverse they take beauties I'd have to I'd have to hear more 2:10 well I want you to tell me I want you to tell me which of the two categories you think Anaximander ought to belong in so in order to do that yes you'll have to distinguish the two categories but that's that's a that's a task on the way to the main task right the main task is like where does Anaximander actually go and in order to do that you'll have to say like okay so here's here's what this group is here's that here's the difference between the two and now we got to figure out which way Anaximander falls on that difference Africa Thakur's Z nominees who said that there was just one god ah there's that monism again right okay and then last but not least Heraclitus should we call the monist went up yeah yeah there's a good one so like if everything is constantly in faint then there's no sameness no sameness we can't talk about unity right there's just kind of like infinite plurality and difference then again you don't say everything has changed there's one fundamental principle one fundamental RK of the cosmos and it's one thing it's change right or it's fire or fire as a metaphor for change or it's strife or war or something like that then and then again I yeah we have a couple of different things are they all different facets of the same one thing and then again when we follow the logic of that one thing it turns out that there isn't one thing there in fact many things so many things way more things than you thought there were like for example you or way more use than you thought there were in fact it different you from moment to moment yeah dicey to call them aloneness they're the le attic monists are doing something slightly different and yet slightly the same they are definitely Monas they're not talking however about one particular principle the argument here that's being put forth by the le attic bonus is that everything is in fact just one unified thing no specification of what that one unified thing is what it's like just that there is unity and similar to this this thought process we were just having now about like well Heraclitus if everything has changed then we have this infinite plurality of things I suppose with the le attic - specifically Parmenides we get this idea that unity is a way deeper Trippier idea than we possibly would have thought before getting into this couple of things worth mentioning about the LA attic bonus or specifically Parmenides let's start with Parmenides Parmenides was by many accounts kind of like a shaman type guy he was a he was a local wise man in LA Elias here on the west coast of what today is Italy you can still go there today there are ruins so yeah he was kind of like wise man medicine man stuff like this some accounts have him practicing and a certain kind of an ORAC ritual you guys know the myth of Orpheus you know Orpheus had to go where didn't Orpheus go yeah you went to the underworld right Orpheus went where like living people are not supposed to go he went to the realm of the dead and then he came back tried to save his wife didn't didn't work out though right yeah he did the Lot's wife thing he looked back yeah not supposed to look back so Orpheus went to the land of the dead and then he came back and the pythagoreans were on to this too they were big into Orphic myths this idea that like in death something can be learned and the whole trick here to wisdom or insight or enlightenment whatever you want to call it is to grab onto that insight that we have when we're dead and bring it back into the the world of the living with the pythagoreans it was this idea that like your true self is not your body and that the death of your body is a liberation of the immaterial soul to where it can go be someplace better we're going to get more elaboration on that from Plato for Parmenides and there's historical disagreement about this but plenty of accounts that would say things that he engaged in practices like fasting for days and going up into the mountains and lying down in a dark cave motionless for days stop eating go to a quiet place where you can't hear anything dark cave or you can't see anything lie motionless so you don't really like feel your body as a matter of fact it's an effort to try to make your body recede into the background so that the mind can wake up have insights you don't eat in you lie motionless in a dark place for a couple of days you're going to see some stuff and Parmenides did the idea here being though that these are insights right these are revelry since we're thinking about like this with now Parmenides sounds he's more of a religious figure than a philosophical figure if we're talking about divine revelation as a matter of fact what's going on in this poem of his reading and the the big the big set of fragments that come from Parmenides are in this poem peri pussy-ass or on nature yeah he meets a goddess and the goddess tells him the truth we have some divine revelation again so this would seem to make Parmenides on the outskirts of our category of philosophers he's engaging and what we might think is a slightly different kind of a practice again just like science and philosophy aren't completely disentangled from one another religion and philosophy aren't completely disentangled from one another are gonna continue to not be very distant counted disentangled from one another for another couple thousand years but despite the fact that on nature this whole poem is perhaps provoked by a practice that today we would say is designed to generate hallucinations despite the fact that he's talking about some kind of divine revelation from a goddess there is an argument here a striking argument and a impressively tight rational argument something that I might go so far as to call a proof in fact I would say this is very different than anything else we've read so far if for no other reason then the length of it is longer than like before we've had fragments and they're tiny tiny fragments we have fragments of Parmenides as poem here as well but they all seem to be part of the same poem and historians and philologists have tried to put them together in a logical order and it tells a story not only does it tell a narrative story it's long enough for him to make an argument an argument through that he makes through the goddess and it is a rational argument first time we've seen this we've had folks who are kind of trying to reason through things or we're guessing that there reason through things we have folks like Heraclitus or even Anaximander who give us little puzzles that we pick up and we think through but this is the first time that we've seen somebody think through a problem step by step and we see their rationale we see their argument some folks myself included we'd be tempted to say yeah everything else was like maybe it was philosophy already maybe it was just proto philosophy by the time we hit Parmenides it's definitely Western philosophy as we know it this might be the beginning of the tradition as we know it specifically a tradition of rationalism and by rationalism I mean trusting to the rational faculties to the exclusion of other faculties in fact to what other faculties do we have besides rationality that we might be tempted or like what do I trust you I trust this or do I trust rationality emotions perhaps okay yeah anything else religion anything else other people perhaps write testimony anything else there's one there's it was it was the one I was fishing for from the start nobody said it yet what's that morality ah not necessarily distinct from rationality senses senses the way things have always been we might say tradition similar enough to the way that religion is working right now the senses that's them that's the big one and stove and so it starts a battle that somewhat argue is still ongoing in philosophy the rationalist versus the empiricist which is more trustworthy the way things make sense to our rational faculties maybe maybe make sense is the wrong word there right the way things yeah I got nothing else makes sense the way things make sense to our rational faculties versus the way that they seem to our empirical sensory faculties right there's the way that things look smell taste touch the way that they seem to our bodily senses and then there's the way that they appear to our thinking rational faculty and sometimes these things are not in agreement with one another when we think through a problem we get to one conclusion when we try to work our way through the problem by appealing to the senses we get a different conclusion we're wondering well which one is which one is the correct one a rationalist will say guess guess which one the rationalist wants to trust our rationality right they trust a rationale ax T and what we've got here with Parmenides is this question about the world seeming one way to our senses but another way according to rationality and Parmenides and Zeno we'll both say yeah not that one that one how is it that things seemed to our senses well it seems to our senses that there are many things there's me there's you there's this thing here there's this thing here there are all kinds of different things and over time they move around and they change some things come into being some things pass away out of being they perish something stick around for a little while something stick around for a long while that's the way it seems to our senses according to rationality though maybe none of these things are true and this is what we get in our poem three big parts of this poem usually known as the proem some some sort of preamble there's the way of truth and the word that Parmenides is using here for truth is Alafaya an interesting term here Alafaya hmm I want to break down its ah let them write again we have an alpha primitive prefix there that says no and left a does anybody know how good is your Greek mythology here let's say does this ring a bell for anybody there's a river in the underworld called the river lefe when you cross it you're supposed to drink a little bit from it and when you do you forget everything this is why when you come back perhaps soon talk about pythagoreans go to the underworld if you were ever to come back you would have no memory of your previous life ah let the UH an unforgettable that was hidden seeing things the way they are and then last but not least the way of seeming maybe we might try to translate the word here is doxa where docks are refers to beliefs or opinions sometimes folks will call this the way of opinion the way things seem versus the way of truth and some kind of preamble what's going on in the preamble set set the set for me what happens in this poem I already mentioned he talked to a goddess how does he get to the goddess wait a bear no I don't think it's a bear might have might have caught some horse yeah there were horses involved in a chariot right there are horses that carried him in a chariot - where - justice past justice justice is doing something justice is justice is Manning the gates what gates the gates of night and day yeah the gates of night and day Parmenides is carried by young maidens and horses in a chariot to the gates of night day and beyond the gates of night and day where justice is kind of Manning this gate where justice is kind of patrolling who gets to go beyond the gates of night and day and the maidens whisper something to justice and let him know that like it's okay he's allowed through and he goes through justice lets him through the gates of night and day what does this mean to go to beyond the gates of night and day yeah night night and day yeah with night nay we have like a light and then later a darkness as if there are two things we're going beyond this right beyond the opposition past the senses yeah anything else beyond the transcendence beyond what are we transcending simple dualities like night and day or yeah our sensory faculties okay yep we're going some places and is he like perhaps is this can we think is this a dream is this a hallucination that he's having in a cave somewhere outside of elya is he dead this is another like easy translation or attempting translation at least what's going on with this like beyond the night's the gates of night and day is that he's taken to the underworld he's taken to the place of the Dead the goddess lets him know it's no ill fate that brought you here you're not really dead it's not a bad thing it's just in right that you're here because coming here you will learn the way of unfailing truth I'm also going to tell you the way of seeming which is not reliable at all and is the path that is like the preferred path of the the silly two-headed mortals who wander confused with confusion in their breast their heads on backwards coming and going and not really sure which way they're going or coming or anything like this I'm going to tell you both of them because you have to know them both why do we have to know them both in order to distinguish between them yeah okay yeah all right that sounds plausible we have to know them both in order to distinguish between them and then I'll send you back with this argument by the way so that when other people ask like what happened you're like the God has told me if somebody comes to you and says like God told me blah blah blah blah blah are you gonna be like let's let's hear this is gonna be important or would you be like somebody comes to you and tells you that God told them something do we think they might be crazy and if they said something that seemed surprising even if we did if we were like I what this I got to hear God spoke to you let's hear what it is and they said like well here's what it is you know the way the world seems not really like that at all not even close it's completely different than the way the world seems you got to stop thinking of it that way think of it this way instead why because God told me I didn't tell me what should I trust you what's going on here except that we get an argument there's an account there's a logoff given by the goddess so that Parmenides can remember this when he goes back to the other side of the gate tonight and day answered that he has something to tell other folks as well in a language that they will understand all right so that's what's going on in the prom and the preamble we go beyond the gates of night night and there's all kinds of imagery here that some folks will make a big fuss over and say that this is this is more proof that this is a kind of like an oarfish ritual and with hallucination and stuff like that like there's a reference to like the sound of the shrill sound of the axle as it spins on the chariot and how it sounds like pipes and some folks will say that like if you fast for a long period of time and sit in the dark and don't move you'll get a kind of hour ringing in your ears that supposedly folks like Parmenides thought like this is the music of the spheres this is like the sound the harmony of the cosmos that the pythagoreans are all talking about I hear it I hear it with this kind of if you don't eat for three days you'll hear the music of the spheres it's a b-flat young the gates of night and day and interesting to that justice is the one who patrols the gates of night and day why justice and he meets the goddess and the goddess tells him that he needs to learn these two things the way of truth the path of truth and the path of seeming what's the path of truth like or how does this start I said there's an argument from the goddess what is the content of this argument how does it begin what are its premises yes yep pretty easy start right that which is is that which is not it's not perhaps the two most uncontroversial premises in the history of philosophy maybe even vacantly true tautologically true who cares like I do I learn anything new at all from that which is is and that which is not is not is there anybody who disagrees with this would be like no I I'm not I'm not sure I'm ready to get on board with that which is is does it depend on what the definition of is is or could the definition of is be anything and still that which is is like what if is means is a fire truck that which is a fire truck is a fire truck it could mean something else it could mean jumps around and sings a song that which jumps around and sings a song jumps around and sings a song doesn't even matter what the definition of is is or what that which is is and that which is not it's not yes that which is is not makes sense all right this is maybe a good starting point is there anybody else who's like that which is is not is yeah that makes sense to me is well now which is is not how is this not just a naked contradiction that which is is not let's try again let's try a substitute for anything else that which is a water bottle is not a water bottle am i talking nonsense that which is is that which is of water bottle is not a mug yeah perhaps that makes sense to us right so that which is a water bottle is not a mug but that which is oh that which is one thing maybe is not some other thing yeah well I don't know if we have different meanings of is is might mean the same thing both times we just provide a little extra something right so in fact we wouldn't have that which is is because you're saying that which is a water bottle is not a mug and so we don't actually have the same thing in both of these places you say that which is one thing is not some other thing perhaps but we but you wouldn't go so far to say that which is one thing is not that same one thing that's crazy talk right agree everybody agree that which is one thing is mmm can't we can't then turn right back around and go and it's also not one thing or that one thing that would be a contradiction yes second to the beyond like the gates of ninety-day that's kind of like talking about like perception and like you know recognizing like the illusions that your senses can give you so would you say something like that which is like I know some like falsity develop your senses would tell you like if your census told you something that was wrong like if I was hallucinating right yeah exactly so but it's actually not that way it seems one way but it is another way right but whichever way it is it's not not that way right however some thing is it's not not that way not not I like not sir not sour little negations right they can double the gate to not not be away is to be away that makes sense how much is is and that which is not is not seemingly not very controversial on its own yes yeah well we're wondering yeah this is this is gonna I want I want us to not focus on that too much just now because we're gonna come back around to it maybe this is a way to like open up a little crack and Parmenides is logic and and see what we can do there but for now let's just focus instead a thing about it is one way then it's not some different way let's just look at it the way that Parmenides offers it that which is is and in fact let's not think of it in terms of predication necessarily is a water bottle is your professor is tired is hungry right just is that's a peculiar statement that which is is it's got everything it needs to be a complete sentence there but does it feel a little bit like it's maybe incomplete that which is is and you're like it is what it is it exists is it apparent perhaps a little clearer now that which exists exists and that which does not exist does not exist and here's the weird thing and immediately right off the bat that got us points out that like that which is is totally sensible statement I'm going to also like say this other thing which is a key premise for us but I'm gonna put a big asterisk by it it's like there's a flag there's a star there's like a warning that comes along with that which is not is not is already a weird statement and the reason why it's a weird statement is because that which is not is not for just a moment I let me just tell you guys up front I don't have a brother I don't have any brothers I have a sister she's younger she's three years younger than me his physical therapist she's pregnant she's having a baby in January she's great her name is Lauren but I don't have any brothers are my non-existent brothers tall are they short do they have red hair beards big muscles what's like they don't exist can I say anything truthful about them at all yeah it's a matter fact I might even be weird to say that they don't exist because now I am talking about them having some property namely the property of non-existence but they don't exist to even have that property of non-existence this is an absurd statement to say that my even to say that my non-existent brothers don't exist which seems straightforward and tautological is already running into some weird difficulties yes I'm sorry yeah I saw it like I'd feel real bad about to because it was like you seem like you really adds up to say and then I said like wait hold on let me say this really weird thing if you think of it let me know yes what do you mean yeah it might be that it's an in fact it seems to be the point of the goddess is that it's beyond the logos like non-being here's another instead of talking about existence and non-existence we can talk about being and non-being and let's put it this way being is non being ain't which is to say there is no non being careful I'm it I maybe just did like a little sleight of hand move there everything that I was saying was just fine that which is is that which is not it's not that which exists exists yeah of course that which does not exist does not exist and if it doesn't exist can I even say that it doesn't exist some kind of weird to talk about it non-existing same way that would be weird to talk about my non-existent brothers at all let alone having particular properties even the properties of non-existence here we go again being is non being isn't which is to say there is no non being am i okay so far have I made any any bad false moves because if there was none being and non-being would be and non-being can't be because it isn't because if non-being bead then it would be being yes I'm not saying if the goddess is saying it but yeah you're making no sense you shouldn't even speak of non-being you can't speak sensibly about non being anything you try to say if non being is gonna be absurd and incoherent I'll log on right outside of the Lagos you cannot speak coherently about non being as soon as you try to you confuse being and non-being you try to talk about non being as if it bees but it don't bees non being doesn't be it doesn't even non bee you can't talk coherently about it yeah hold on to it like okay keep keep it in the oven for a little longer yeah is this how like this would be like pretty magical right yeah I would just have to say the words and things would come into existence and there are some statements that work like this oh yeah I was thinking of like kind of ontological argument type stuff I was thinking more of like performative language so I I hereby I hereby promise to end class at 12:15 is that statement true wait no not that I will end class of 15 I hereby promise to end class at 12:15 do I promise I just did right in the saying yet I made it true I don't have to follow that promise but I did promise right and it's the making the promise that makes the promise right it's the making the promise that makes the promise so making the promise that makes the statement that says I'm making the promise true I now pronounce you man and wife it's another one that's like it wasn't true until I said it and as soon as I said it it became true because I said it maybe but that's not that's it's not like boom eight like let there be light there's light two headed mortals don't pull that off though right becomes real - like when you say becomes real to you do you mean that it seems that way yeah yeah at the risk of like us kind of drifting off into like cliche undergraduate philosophical territory like what are yours man they're just like a social construction thing maybe there maybe there are insurance but like seeming ain't the same as being right or seeming isn't the same as truth so things might seem certainly to us that doesn't make them real for us now this is a problem by the way that's gonna go on like it's not like Parmenides drops it like like a big stinking turd in the middle of philosophy Ville and like it sticks her around like Bertrand Russell is wringing his hands over this in the 1940s folks are still wondering about this might look into a fella named Alexis my nan who wrote some interesting stuff on this to where he would say he said something along the lines of anything that you can think of her speak of unicorns like three-headed dogs all things like that they do exist but they exist some in some other realm of like fictional things mine ons jungle they call it ome Inon G he's not the most highly respected philosopher in the history of philosophy but he's definitely he's got this very interesting thing going yes yes yeah yeah in first meditation Descartes or second meditation Descartes says I'm thinking right same sort of thing I'm thinking in fact I'm talking might be one of those things where yeah like you could be you could fool yourself about it you could think you were talking when in fact you were dreaming and not talking at all but yeah sure if we trust that you are talking yeah saying I'm talking guarantees the truth if I'm talking for sure yeah is it ready okay if you fail to acknowledge the non-existence of an on being like are you saying like if I confuse an on being with being if I think that an on being exists yeah I can try but I won't make sense by saying that they don't exist then that seem like I'm trying to have it both ways oh okay yeah sure perhaps yeah if you don't think about it totally let me introduce you this fellow Parmenides who's a rationalist and there's going to insist that we think about it and that it's going to be surprising when we do so yeah sure if you don't think too carefully about it all of this makes sense it seems to not be a problem but as soon as you begin thinking about this and it's you couldn't start with simpler premises that which is is and that which is not and suddenly boom we're off to the races that does not can't be you can't even speak sensibly about it but these two headed mortals on the way of doxa keep insisting on confusing being and non-being here are some of the ways in which they confuse being in on being and some of the ways in which this seemingly simple and and this is like weird right this whole non being isn't and so like you can't even talk sensibly about it that's a little weird but it's not earth-shattering yet it's about to become earth-shattering all right here comes ready brace yourself you guys read it already you tell me like what's it mean can we just there is no so we're saying being is non being isn't which is to say there's no non being right what about becoming what about coming to be what about perishing in order to come into being yeah in order to become first I have to not be and then go from not being to being but in order to go from not being to being I had to be in not being and that makes no sense that's total like bananas mumbo jumbo it it's just words that mean nothing where were you before you were you ridiculous question right yeah but some people like sperm and egg that wasn't you though right we want to travel if you want to travel far enough back like before you were sperm an egg you were like a turkey sandwich on your dad's played and like and a slice of pizza and your mom's plate and like but that's not you that's something else right those were those things were and then they got eaten and they ceased to be they perished and some new thing came into being it came from like if we think of it in terms of like alright and this was an issue that we were thinking of it came up some people brought it up we're talking about Anaximander to in the up hey Ron and this idea of like the debt that's owed to the it to the unlimited when something becomes limited it's got to go back and some folks were like oh boy the minute if something leaves the unlimited then how infinite and unlimited is the unlimited it's like missing something and it has a debt that doesn't make any sense same sort of thing going on here to where if we're saying typically we think of maybe typically we think if we think of being and non-being and becoming and perishing at all do we think of it like this coming to be is like first you were over here and non-being and then you crossed over into being now when you're parish you're the other way the problem with this that Parmenides is pointing out is that this isn't there is no non-being if there was non being and non-being would be being and non-being can't be being not even not even close you don't even have to think very hard to realize that non-being can't be being it has to be non being no there there a there was right it has to be non being no no it can't be non being even it just isn't there is no non being so this is the problem no becoming no coming to be no perishing either this is this is like the first of these moves where we start with the very obvious premise that which is is and that which is not is not and we move on to something very surprising which is ya know coming to be in perishing no coming to be in perishing means everything is all the time and unchanging too right we'll get to this in a second yes what do you what do you want wait let me pause you right there catch you start that over again but yeah with the microphone and you don't need to talk right now you just put on your desk it's fine so when you were talking about being and non-being is like two separate sides of like yeah like this right some kind of playing right and becoming a perishing you're like hopping between these two sides yeah is that like it seems like a mistake to do that because not being it's just not there so even when we've become pairs it's still in the state of being it's just like a different area so yeah alright so yeah that's that's good so we would say something like yeah maybe things don't come into being in touch maybe they just change right yeah may they always exist but we're kind of like you know we're going from like turkey sandwich to sperm to me to dirt to a tree yeah and it's like only change no actual coming to being or perishing right except that like the next move that the goddess makes is and there's no change because in order to change we saw this with Heraclitus right yeah to change is to cease to be in one state and to come into being in another state the turkey sandwich gets destroyed and the sperm gets created right yeah what what a strange example to be this me this is recorded and it's going up on YouTube my grandparents watch these videos sometimes so right and no change either and Heraclitus taught us why this is like maybe the like one of the few things that Parmenides and Heraclitus will agree on that coming to be in perishing and change these are the same thing that's all change is it's coming to be into one state perishing another state like your previous state dies the new one is born every time there's a change but this can't be the case because that would involve us making this this mistake here right the same mistake that we make when we think that coming to be in perishing is possible permanent he says it's not possible the only way coming to be and perishing would be possible as if non-being was and non-being can't be same thing with change you can't have any change it confuses being and non-being tries to talk about non being as if it were there was a hand in the back yeah no no no no no okay anything else besides change that gets thrown out the window here oh it got dark and obscure yes seems like it came into being right so the question in case didn't get picked up was what about thought right and are you thinking specifically about thought about like thinking new ideas I'm not sure exactly what the goddess would have or amenities would have said of this he does speak about thinking he says and he speaks of it in a way that we would assume that a rationalist would write that thinking when done correctly reveals being as it is reveals being as it is thinking doesn't make things when we were kind of talking about this before thinking doesn't make things just pop into existence but through thinking we might reveal things the way that they actually are in fact he says it is the same for thinking as it is for being but he's going to insist that it actually be thought whereas this stuff saying like can you think non-being is is that thinkable is it thinkable to think that which is not is yeah so in this case we would so Parmenides would be like yeah thinking like sure like thinking is fine in fact I'm really big on thinking did you hear I'm a rationalist I'm totally into thinking but it's got to actually be thinkable thoughts not just words that come out of people's mouths so non being is is not a thinkable thought and if non being is is not a thinkable thought then coming to be in perishing it's not a thinkable thought because for things to come to be in perish we have to make this weird confusion of being and non-being first that's the only way right you have to not exist and then come into existence in order to come to be where did you come from non-being were you there existing as a non-existent thing not a thinkable thought it's incoherent so I think I know does that answer your question no not at all introduces more questions perhaps ah yes okay alright I think I can cut this off even even earlier so what would yeah so what would Parmenides or the goddess say about the invention of the wheel yeah and how the wheel was invented first there was no wheel and then somebody thought of it and then there was a wheel yeah they would say there's no wheel yeah that's just like it seems like there are wheels and that they were invented but like no there are no wheels the reason why there are no wheels is related to the same reason why there's no becoming or perishing also the same reason why there's no change there's no change because there's no becoming or perishing and change is just becoming and perishing right and there's no plurality of things there are not many things at all there's only one thing because in order for there to be many things well first of all those many things we typically think of them coming to be in perishing and changing and like that's a that's a problem that we've already mapped out but in order for there to be multiple things don't they have to be separate from one another like if I'm one thing and you're another thing then we're not the same thing is that right there's some kind of distinction there's some separation between us what's between us space empty space full of nothing full of full of non-existence being between us other things then what's between me and the other things right like I'll go Zeno on you if I'm like what's between you and me you'd be like err all right what's between me and the air more air what's between me and the air that's really the closest air space is space a thing or are things in space space is the absence of things it's non-being there's non being in between us the absence it's the there's an absence present between me and all the things that aren't me what the what is this absence that is present is this just another fancy way of saying non being is in comes like none of this makes any sense since the goddess no not not this is like this part all makes sense if you just think about it carefully you will realize that you don't have to think very carefully at all to know that that which is is and that which is not is not but the consequences that come from that and just a little bit of paying attention with a goddess kind of leading the way for you will reveal that that means there's no coming to be there's no perishing and there's no change and there are no pluralities of things there's just one thing and it's being that's all being is it's just like that's in fact if we were to like take this to its logical conclusion there's only one sensible thing that you can say about the universe it is that's it it is what's it like just just is and it's uniform it's not more in one place in less in another place it's a uniform well-rounded sphere of being just like sitting there humming with the music of the spheres just like that's that's it that's the truth and then there's a way of seeming in which there are all kinds of opposites and we confuse being a nun being yes there's no yeah there's no wheel right because in order for there to be a wheel there would then have to be non wheels and now there's a plurality and it goes it gets worse it gets worse it's not only the Parmenides we look at a wheel me like that's not there he would be like there's no me there's no me there's no you there's just being being being that's all no me no you no goddess no Parmenides matter of fact no multiplicity of ways right no way of truth and way of seeming no two-headed mortals and gods none of this stuff in fact the whole story that the goddess is telling seems to like almost be at risk of eating itself here now and maybe this is what we're supposed to understand maybe this is the goddess of saying like you're the way things seem is not the way that they are here I'll get you started and at the end of it it's just kind of like we had like kind of closest it's like the snake that eats its tail or something like that when they call it or robber us yeah so that's the way of truth it's at the end of the day it's quite simple that which is is you know oh and that which is not no don't even that's that's that's all but we did here in this whole big process was we started out with this and we flagged this one as we said like that one's kind of peculiar the woods weird watch out for it by the time we got through with it we just pretty much said like yeah like let's just get rid of that and like that's that's the point that which is is and it seemed like something that wasn't particularly interesting the first time we said it but by the time we've gone through the whole process now that which is is means something slightly different which is to say no coming to be no perishing no change no plurality of things just one big well rounded humming ball of being and that's the way of truth for Parmenides some similarities between him and Heraclitus they're both these weird little puzzles that like don't seem like much on their surface you pick them up and you start to play with them and suddenly you're like whoa what is going on with this that was weird that's maybe about as far as it goes some kind of like little stylistic quirk because substantively they couldn't be more different from one another Heraclitus says everything is in a constant state of change Parmenides says there's no change Heraclitus says there's no you know unified you over time and the reason for that is because you're constantly changing and you is just momentary para manatee says there's no you because there's no separation between you and anything else there's just being being which you know may sound in some respects and we've been here before to like sounds a little Eastern as well yeah that all of this separation from things is an illusion and when you die when you cease to be you where do you go an axe management back to the apparent where you're one with everything and there is no me and you and separate things there's no coming to be in perishing there's just eternal being this would this would be the afterlife for somebody like Parmenides you return not return you always there always was a oneness but you this it's even weird to talk about isn't it you thought that there was a separation between you and everything else it was an illusion it was a mistake that two-headed mortals make a logical mistake in fact a mistake of confusing that which is with that which is not but how how could you make a mistake if there was no you right and if there is no yeah if there is like you were on the wrong path there aren't a multiplicity of paths there's just one path you think there's more than one path but that's a two-headed mortal mistake no this is the the goddess refers to all the humans as two-headed mortals they're two-headed because they are trying to hold on to both being and non-being at the same time and they and they confuse the two of them and they say that there are things like they say that there's night and they say that there's day and they say that there's mail and they say that there's female and they say that there are all these differences in multiplicities and they say that there's coming to be and there's perishing and there's change and a plurality of things and they're just wrong they're confused about this they walk around not knowing where they're going with confusion and their breasts because they can't tell the difference between being and non-being and before you're like what a bunch of silly people yeah that's you it's us it's all of us right that's the way of seeming the way of seeming is the way of seeming doesn't need a whole lot of elaboration because we're all relatively familiar with it right and because at the end of the day I don't know if there is in fact what we have see me clever argument no come on yeah whatever didn't convince me I ain't changing my mind it is the first time we've seen an argument quite like that in this class we've seen like little little nuggets little fragments that are like pretty things to pick up and think about but the argument that's on offer in the poem of Parmenides is one where it's not so much that we're invited to think through an idea as we're led through it right we get the step-by-step instruction from the goddess Parmenides had a student named CEO of Elia and zeno pretty much adopted the same sorts of positions as his teacher did that's why I refer to them collectively as the Elli attic monus Elli attic monism is this articulation of this this idea that there is no there's no coming to be there's no perishing there's no change there's no plurality of things there's just a unity and that's all that there is it's not even a specification of what that unity is made of it might not even make sense to talk about it that way it's just it's a focus on unity itself as a metaphysical principle and furthermore I erased it already but this explicit attention to things like being and non-being this is a new step for philosophy as well there's a whole new branch of philosophy that's born here called ontology the study of being brought into existence brought into existence by Parmenides or it was always there or there aren't a multiplicity of philosophical sub disciplines Zeno Parmenides a student sought to prove the sorts of things that Parmenides was talking about and do it in just novel ways as a matter of fact we'll see in the Platonic dialogue Parmenides Socrates asks Zeno aren't these all the same proof every time like you like sailing here's another proof here's another proof here's another proof they're all just the same proof right and they're all variations a theme that kind of exploits some ambiguities that appear in the idea of continuity or infinity but a different kind of infinity than maybe were accustomed to thinking about typically Zeno had just a whole bunch of paradoxes and they were all aiming at proving to us that the way that things seemed to our senses is just absurd to rationality completely incomprehensible that we should just abandon the way that things seem and agree that they must be very different than that if given this option between trusting to our senses or trusting to rationality Zeno like Parmenides says I'm going with rationality we don't have even close to enough time to go through all of his paradoxes they become uninteresting after the first couple anyway you start to be like oh yeah they're all the same thing so we'll start with a very popular and easy one this marker is terrible there we go let's try Achilles in the tortoise so there's Achilles he's big he's got abs he's Achilles oh yes I started moving it so it's a helmet with a like feathers and stuff all right there's Achilles we all know Achilles right he's half God he's like very fast say what you will about Achilles and his ability to like contain his rage but he's fast and Achilles has a race with a tortoise oh he needs a tail alright so its Achilles versus The Tortoise and Achilles because he's so fast and because he's such a nice guy maybe he's not a nice guy maybe he just wants to embarrass the tortoise he says all right tortoise have a head start this is not a fair race because I'm so much faster than you why don't you go run out ahead a little bit and we'll see who can get to the finish line first and the tortoise is like okay alright let's do this tortoise makes off and Achilles sitting there alright I guess it's time to go kilise first trying to catch up to the tortoise no matter how fast Achilles is it takes him some amount of time to get to where the tortoise is right he's not so fast that he instantaneously makes it so Achilles runs from here to here and in that process it has taken a certain amount of time right now the tortoise is slow but it's not completely standing still so in this amount of time the tortoise has moved forward in fact I'm gonna track the tortoise in right here so in that amount of time the tortoise has moved to here now so Achilles has not in fact caught up to the tortoise but you know he's closer than he was before so now I kill ease is gonna say like alright so I caught up to where the tortoise was but now he's moved forward so now I'm gonna catch up to the tortoise for realsies and so yeah he runs up to where the tortoise is now and he's really really fast so he doesn't in a very small amount of time but not zero amount of time so in that amount of time the tortoise is moved again no problem says Achilles I'll just catch up now but that takes some amount of time and in that time the tortoise has moved no problem says Achilles they'll just catch up and in that amount of time the tortoise has moved no no problem I'll just catch some lorem in that amount of time the courtesans moved will he ever catch The Tortoise what according to this according to the law goes according to rationality itself can he possibly catch The Tortoise every time he does the tortoise has moved forward well we can imagine we just stopped time right you do a little Zack Morris routine or like whatever what was that other show where the girl like touches her finger together and freezes time click I didn't see that but sure click yeah you just like you pause the movie of reality and you're like okay now he's there and in that time or we could just say like it's because we're thinking of time and space as infinitely divisible as continuous that it seems like Achilles can never catch the tortoise yes seems that way doesn't it in fact seems that way too anybody's ever watched anybody catch up to something and pass it that's your sense is talking this is the Lagos talking so much the worse for seeming in fact what what Zeno concludes from this thought experiment from this little paradoxical puzzle is motion must be impossible motion must be impossible and this is just a continuation of Parmenides right motion is nothing more than change in place over time and there is no change seems right here you want to see in a slightly different way I'm gonna walk from here to the window but in order for me to walk from here to the window first I gotta make it to the halfway point right I gotta make it to that halfway point before I get to the window alright so before I make it to that halfway point I've got to make it to the halfway point to the halfway point right all right before I make it to the halfway point a halfway point first I got to make the halfway point of the halfway point a halfway point before I do that I got to make with a halfway point halfway point halfway does it ever stop do I ever run out of halfway points yes who said yes how would I run out of halfway points planks length yes there it is all right we know this now at the time like part of the problem here is we're thinking of spaces continuous and infinitely divisible these days a lot of physicists say yeah well the plank plank is actually there's a lower limit to like how far things can move in space there's you can't infinitely divide space there's that there's a kind of a graininess to it sometimes we'll say there's a discreteness to space especially as things move through it so this is and in fact some of the other stuff in the let's see this paradox we can talk about the limit concept and we can note that while the number of trips that Achilles has to make is infinite and even Achilles can't do an infinite number of tasks the number of trips Achilles needs to actually catch up to the tortoise is limitless but we say yeah as it approaches that infinity the amount of time that it takes them to make each trip is getting infinitely small as approaching so you might talk about it that way literally a limit right yeah well yeah the mathematical concept of a limit but let's be honest like that ain't gonna be around what like earliest late 17th century with l'hopital maybe the invention of the calculus in the 18th century some folks would argue that as a concept it doesn't even really get clarified until 19th century mathematical analysis if you're interested in the concept of infinity in the way that it works we've got here not a big infinity but lots of really tiny infinities the all of the infinities within things right like the distance between 1 0 & 1 is finite right it's just one unit but how many divisions can you make in that you can go forever and ever right there's a there's an infinity within that one unit this is the sort of thing that drove mathematicians nuts for a long long time if you're interested in this sort of thing there are all kinds of books David Foster Wallace if you're a fan of him has a great book on infinity history of everything nope it's it's not it's nonfiction it's an essay and it's a it's called the history of everything yeah or everything no that's not everything and more I think is what it's called everything in more history of infinity just look up David Foster Wallace infinity great book um and all to make the same point that Parmenides was making the way things seemed doesn't make any sense if you stop and think about it therefore so much the worse for the path of doxa let's forget about seeming let's just talk about the way that things make sense this is an interesting dilemma and when to kind of reflect on I think personally if they seem one way but it that doesn't make any sense at all what are you gonna trust the thing that makes sense then you're irrational is to I suppose right if you're like I'm sticking with seeming and we might think to ourselves all-white why would I do that well because my senses deceive me sometimes sure yeah that's a possibility does rationality ever deceive you no yes no yes we might say we might say something like to those who say rationality can deceive you we might say only if you're not being careful only if you're making sloppy arguments but if you're if you are careful then yeah I don't know if rationality can deceive you what's that they can't the truth can't not be true yeah that would that would certainly be one way of looking at when we're struggling to figure out like well how do we get to the truth what are what are the tools that we're willing to trust in and what happens when those tools conflict Parmenides and zeno are given us an answer the answer that the Ellie attic Moniz have on offer next um we're gonna be reading the pluralists who as you might guess are going to disagree with Parmenides on a few things they're actually looking to try to reconcile the the plural is one way to think about them is that they're on board with the Ellie attic project or at least they they get that it presents a huge problem a problem that really needs to be solved and the pluralists are going to attempt to solve it we're also going to look at the Sophists we're not going to spend too much time on except to kind of make out loose gesture towards because Plato is going to talk about them a whole lot more so keep your eyes peeled for a reading assignment and reading quiz on the pluralists and the Sophists and then when we're done with that we're done with the pre-socratics and we can start we can start looking at the Socratic s-- all right see y'all later

Channel: Adam Rosenfeld

Views: 10,761

Rating: 4.8251367 out of 5

Keywords: Ancient Philosophy, Pre-Socratics, Eleatic Monism, Parmenides, Zeno

Id: DsPnFPKnInQ

Length: 74min 10sec (4450 seconds)

Published: Thu Sep 01 2016