In this lecture we will learn about Parmenides, a Presocratic philosopher who concluded that birth, change, motion, and death are illusory. For more lectures visit www.academyofideas.com
Parmenides is the most underappreciated philosopher, as he gave us the first contribution to our modern Scientific Method. The idea that non-existence cannot be proved (Today we say that we can only prove what we observe) started with him.
@@genesisbustamante-durian But whoever tried to prove the existence of non-existence ? What exactly do you mean by 'proving non-existence'? Were there philosophers before Parmenides who tried to prove non-existence ?
Also his idea is not paradoxical!! It is paradoxical to someone who does not see the world as he does. If you DO see the world as he does, there is no contradiction toward the appearance. This can actually be said about anyone's views. The narrator of this video does not see time as standing still, so it is contrary to HIS appearances. It is not paradoxical if you view time as not moving. Even if you do not completely and wholeheartedly experience the world as stopped, if the idea of stopped time rings true enough in your heart an experience of time is only seen as an experience and not the way things are. You would realize that the experience of time passing falls within the truth you live in which you are a moment of experience, so to speak. I'm talking of someone whose perception of reality is not based on the senses. I think many people could relate to this. As an example, you can close your eyes and still believe that in your reality you are in the same place as before you closed them. This illustrates that what we think of our reality can have nothing to do with basic senses such as sight and time. If the idea of still-time is strong enough, it would not be paradoxical to that person.
But science relies on our perception of things. Imperialism only works within the realm of perception. Take physics. How could we measure anything about a particle if the particle is not differentiable from the rest of the universe. Science can never tell us of a completely objective truth independent of perception because there must be a perceiver to conduct any observation or experiment. Sorry if I’m being too technical or difficult to understand. Science can never confirm Parmenides’ claims.
+geirtwo His ideas kind of remind of the Spacetime physical understanding of the world. In that where time is only a fourth dimension of space and everything that ever be is a causal continuation of space into time. In that case movement also doesn't exist, only an amount of 4D entities extending infinitely in all dimensions
Or maybe we're simply lost in metaphysics since Plato, who killed the notion of Parmenide's equation of though with being. If a being is something ideatic like Plato postulated it is, it is simply not ''present'' anymore like Heidegger says. It becomes a category, a simple notion in the function of language. So in a sense, he is perhaps still very much ahead of today's philosophy, who is still prety far from becoming truly life manifested and not lost in ideological ''spewings''.
His ideas are similar to many schools of Buddhism and Taoism. It's really impressive though that Parmenides and Heraclitus came to these conclusions on their own without access to a Zen master or anything.
These same ideas were put forth by the Chinese (see Laozi, Zhuangzi) and the Indians (see Adi Shankara, Buddha, the gunas, etc.) as well. It wasn't just the Greeks. These might actually be reflective of our universal condition.
White Man Genes account for nothing. The Greeks were fortunately situated in the crossroads of great civilizations: Egypt, Persia and Babylon. It is written in these ancient texts that Greek philosophers sought instruction from foreign lands.
White Man If you wanted me to be more specific, then you should have asked, instead of resorting to emotional name-calling. That Thales received instruction from Egypt is stated by Iambilichus, Herodotus, Pamphilia of Epidaurus, and Proclus. That Pythagoras received instruction from Egypt is stated by Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch. That Solon discussed philosophy with Egyptian monks is stated by Plutarch. That Democritus, the most well-travelled of them all, received instruction from India, Ethiopia, Egypt, Babylon, and Chaldea, is stated by Strabo and Laertius. Ancient Greece was a maritime civilization that stretched as far as modern-day Turkey, and conducted trade with other civilizations through the Mediterranean and the Aegean Seas. The Mediterranean actually connected the major powers at the time. So it would come as no surprise that multi-cultural influences would find their way into the Greek mindset, as with any open mercantile society. Moreover, it's not very controversial that the Egyptians and Babylonians did actually know how to compute algebraic unknowns, fractions, surface areas and volumes, and even the "Pythagorean" theorem. The Greeks improved upon these ideas and formalized them, but they built on the shoulders of giants. The method of exhaustion was not invented in the civilizations surrounding Greece, but was developed independently later in Ancient China. That said, I wouldn't respect the opinion of anyone who uses "ya tard" in an intellectual discussion. Not to mention, I couldn't even comprehend your final sentence. So, consider this the last time I would accommodate you. Here's a tip: If you are going to claim racial supremacy, at least behave as if you are intellectually capable. Otherwise, nobody will take you seriously.
I think it stems from the fact they had such an advanced civilisation, meaning they didn't have to work non stop to survive like less advanced cultures/civilisations. So they had security leisure time to think and create these amazing ideas. Just my idea of it.
Parmenides was a true genius. That is why you don’t understand his philosophy. The man invented the laws of logic to prove that all is one. How different is that from Relativity or quantum physics in principle? Parmenides speaks from the point of view of eternity. That is from a much higher state of consciousness then men normally experience. From that point of view nothing does change. All is eternally now in a continuous present. All is being created out of the one being but never changing from that one being. From above we see there is no space to move into. Rather we are created continuously each moment through what appears to be empty space. Most only see the surfaces of things and can not see the one substance (consciousness) that binds all things together in one being. I see no paradoxes at all in his reasoning. He is one of the great fathers of western civilization and had a huge influence on its development. He was not mad. He was a true spiritual teacher that spoke to us from another world. A world where all is of one being, the eternal continuous now of creation.
"In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, of the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true." - Russell Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy
An interesting video, but I would have preferred it if the lecturer had not tried to direct our thinking by classifying Parmenides's philosophy as absurd. It deserves more respect than that. At least let us hear what he has to say first without the negativity.
It absolutely is absurd and it's value comes from exposing how complex reasoning works and not from actually shaping a better understanding of reality.
To me, lecturer's depiction as such is not paradoxical in itself, since it seems he tries to defend Parmenides in Parmenides' perception of the world. I understand your reaction but as you see from the explanation of para-doxa, it is contradictory in appearance, which, after moments of self-reflection, allows for "a" possibility of its ("the" Parmenides, "the" assertion etc.) truth in itself.
“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.” -Bill Hicks
The key to understanding Parmenides is the idea that motion and becoming are illusions, because the underlying stuff of existence is eternal and unchanging.
Parmenides is probably the only Greek Philosopher who really got it. Definitely the most brilliant. His thinking is on the same lines of Advaita Vedanta (non-dual philosophy). Advaita Vedanta also claims the reality is Existence, Consciousness and Bliss. The term used for that reality is "Brahman". Everything that we experience is an appearance of that changeless reality which is beyond time, space and causation. That reality and our own reality is one and the same. Only the subject is real, objects are mere appearance borrowing their existence from the subject.
this is a joke right? parmenides would be the first to tell you that he doesn't get it. like he literally created that concept of unknowing nothing no-thing after getting ass blasted by Gorgias. thomas jefferson says it best...He who knows best knows how little he knows. guesses and splashes this wouldn't be you.
@@bannor216 I am not very familiar with Greek philosophy, I come from Advaita Vedanta (AV) background. I had come across fragments of Parmenides and was blown away by it. It is in exact adherence to Advaita Vedanta. "Nor is it divided, since it is all alike;/ and it is not any more there, which would keep it from holding together,/ nor any worse, but it is all replete with What Is./ Therefore it is all continuous: for What Is draws to What Is.” This is exactly how we define reality, as Sat Chit Ananda ( Existence Consciousness & Bliss) or Brahman or Self in AV. Reality cannot be spoken of as words are limiting, but this is the closes words can come to it. Then what about all this flux, constant change we see? Parmenides has the same take as AV. On Guthrie’s strict monist reading, Parmenides’ deduction of the nature of reality led him to conclude “that reality [is], and must be, a unity in the strictest sense and that any change in it [is] impossible” and therefore that “the world as perceived by the senses is unreal” (Guthrie 1965, 4-5). As per AV also creation is an appearance in Brahman and has no reality or has a dependent reality, just like that between a dreamer and dream. Due to ignorance a snake is seen on a rope, but in reality there is only the rope. There is no snake. Reality erroneously perceived is creation. I can demonstrate from sheer logic and use everyday personal experience that Parmenides was correct. He was simply brilliant.
@Sean Francis Waters Lancaster You are right. Vedanta is one of the 6 Astika ( considers Veda as the authority) Indian philosophies. There are other nastika (does not consider Veda as authority) philosophies like Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka (materialist) etc. Vedanta has 3 sub philosophies: Dvaita ( dualists), Vishistadvaita (qualified non-dualism) and Advaita (non-dualism). I am talking about Advaita as propounded by Shankaracharya and his guru’s guru, Gaudapada. Any advaitin will find Parmenides writings as purely advaitic, non-dualistic. It is a tragedy why Parmenides has not got much attention. I was blown away by his thoughts when I read the fragments for the first time. Simply brilliant. He should be revered.
All of human reasoning and intuition whether it's from the East or West will arrive to the same path, conclusion, and dead end. The study of philosophy and science are futile endeavors when it comes to understanding reality, albeit necessary ones to distract humans from their plights and prepare them for their physical deaths by fulfilling their curiosity. However, all attempts to rationalize the irrational will come to naught. This was the reason for the Socratic turn, Socrates realizing that you can't understand the nature of reality with reasoning and directed his philosophy towards human affairs.
I'm so glad I found this! Finally a philosopher rather than a scientist that agrees with my philosophy! The problems that people have with his ideas, I would say, are based on understanding the ideas incorrectly. In actuality even time does not change. This does not contradict the experience of time passing. Please consider the fact that you can experience something without it being based on reality. There is no denial that this experience exists and, rather, it is factual that the experience exists. There is the experience of time being part of reality, though time does not pass. There is the experience of objects having an independent existence, though they constantly exchange atoms and are one. The true reality is that there is an existent experience wherein time feels existent. If you assume that time is passing as your experience has told you, you are assuming too much. However! The non-existence of the passage of time does not make the feeling of time passing irrelevant! It is extremely relevant in the "fake world". There is an entire system of reality that normal people adhere to which has its place. It is real in that it truly is experienced as having truth. A drawing still has a complex existence, but in the actuality it is not what it "claims to be". The drawing is consistent within itself, but does not exist as it seems when considering the fundamental nature of reality. The drawing (aka our perceptual world) is still worth learning about because it has relevance to YOU experiencing it!
What are you asuming time is? Because if we describe it as a physical dimension that represents the succession of states through which matter passes, then it does pass. But if you describe it in other way, then when we say "time" we would be reffering to other thing besides the one that you are describing, so nobody would say (in that definition) that time passed, because then they wouln't be reffering to it (if they know the definition of what they are trying to comunicate, if not you would be bassing your argument in something that they didn't mean).
@@meditati-1524 One state being the relative future of another doesn’t require literal succession. Our organization of these moments is merely for convenience. It allows us to imagine a seamless unfolding. Since my comment, though, I've decided that individual moments of experience are what's real. That raw sensation or mind-state has sufficient presence. These experiences are ontologically separate, but we can abstract a connection via any similarity. For instance, all real experiences have a conscious attribute. We can pretend that "consciousness" is a space containing experiences. We can compare one to another. I can draw a line from my present to my "relative future." On the way there, I pass through all experiences in that range of transition. Our traditional direction of time is a pattern that we organize many transitions by. It's especially relevant to us, because we assume its organization as absolute, and we have memories and linear hopes, etc. It's a highly relevant pattern to beings of this universe, since our mental and physical processes are largely dependent on that pattern's coherence. However, if all states really only rely on their own eternal and coherent existence, I can imagine that there're some experiences that don't project a linear pattern. Logic is a representative form, existent in our imaginations. The inherent truths of logic don't need us, sure, but neither do truths need to literally exist to be true. Anyway, all relational representations have codependent objects in spaces of similarity. I can experience two pencils and an eraser. They relate to each other in measurable ways, and they relate to the experience for some source of existence. All possible and impossible relations are inherent in nonexistence. I'm not saying that nonexistence is something that exists, but that concepts are always the same, if they're defined the same way, as you seemed to be pointing out. Hopefully I illustrated the part of my logic that you asked about.
@@immedi8Minds Well, you've stated: 'OUR perceptual world'. Another thing: in your experience, where does the fake world take place, who supplies it and on what basis?
Parmenides perceived things AS THEY ARE, which is by nature contradictory to our own perceiving mode. One cannot comprehend the world through a fragment. That's preposterous, not Parmenides final conclusion. He was the mystic of the west, his realizations matches that of hindus mystics.
He got a truth that is too simple for the conditioned mind to accept: I have to use my imagined past or future (strictly images that reside in the mind) to prove that anything ever moves.
You calling his ideas the most absurd in philosophy is in itself absurd. He has validity. Literally, the natural law stating that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" confirms what he was stating way back then.
I love you so much!! Please keep making videos. Thank you for taking the time and explaining the videos. Please don't be afraid of making longer videos.
the20hr rule "There is no truth" but how could you be so certain of this statement itself, I mean how do you know this statement is itself true? Goodluck
What is true to me may not be true to you . my reality is not yours . Your reality is only true to you . But all Greeks knew the 7 teachings of Tahiti especially after Aristoteles arrival to Egypt . Have you read the Kybalion you can down load it for free on amazon it's very eye opening to the type of thinking that was happening 4000-5000 years ago.
Heraclitus did believe in an objective truth. The logos, the fundamental principle that structures reality from the inside and governs all through all. "For it is wise to say that all is one, and one is all". While everything changes, the logos remains. According to Heraclitus the Logos is the essence of the Cosmos, that transforms, orders and structures the universe according to its law/proportion".
💎🏆 Great insightful & fruitful video on Life and Philosophy of Parmenides : The Father of Metaphysics 🏆💎 ❤💙💚 Grateful for this channel ❤💙💚 📜Parmenides Quote: “Let reason alone decide.”
This is a very nice introduction to Parmenides's thought. To the Academy of Ideas: It would be GREAT if you would get the CC's professionally formatted so that instructors could freely use it in their courses.
Very good video! Heraclitus process of ceaseless change of continuous flux and decay is the most logical if the Universe is a continuum of continuous energy exchange.
His ideas kind of remind of the Spacetime physical understanding of the world. In that where time is only a fourth dimension of space and everything that ever be is a causal continuation of space into time. In that case movement also doesn't exist, only an amount of 4D entities extending infinitely in all dimensions .
Interesting to listen to after reading "Reality is not what it seems" by Donald Hoffman. I'm no panpsychist by any stretch of the imagination but that book did convince me that reality as we experience it, is nothing like reality outside ourselves. not so far of from Parmenides
I actually was really interested in the ideas of Parmenides due to the fletcher's paradox (which apparently is also known as the Arrow paradox or Zeno's paradoxes (Zeno being a supporter of Parmenides' ideas))... It feels like a very significant problem with how we understand the passage of space/time... Apparently I'm seeing there are proposed solutions to the problem so maybe I'll find one that is convincing, but yeah... The idea is that if you shoot an arrow then in any SPECIFIC moment in time during that arrow's flight (imagine taking a picture of the arrow in flight) you cannot say that in that exact moment that arrow is moving from where it is (in the photo) to where it is not... It's not like a GIF... It's basically just static and frozen in one place in that moment of time/photo...
Movement and rest are unintelligible notions when divorced from the context of the concept of time. Try to think of a timeless movement, or a rest period that took no time.
Am I wrong to assert that Parmenides is expounding a Transcendental theory of Being the way Kant thought of it? Since he disregards the representations of Time and Space and the Categories to come to an understanding of the Noumenal world. Plato then takes a step backwards, again using the concepts of the Transcendental analytic (Unity, Causality, and such) and aesthetic (time and space) in his theory Forms, and as a consequence the whole of Western philosophy until Kant being stuck again in metaphysical wordplay.
Sounds absolutely right! I felt there was some good within the philosophy of Plato, but that in most parts he was making crazy assertions and a system built on crap. I did not know that the good I had felt within it was the philosophy of Parmenides that he butchered out of misunderstanding.
Space is inconceivable without time, and vice versa. These are not two separate categories, but a single category of space-time continuum in which time and space have their being.
@@SDSen Nonsense, the only thing that is real is space, matter/energy and the movement of matter/energy in that space. Time is a human construct(and as such an illusion) that measures relative motion. When we say one second what do we mean? Well last time I checked 1 second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom". In other words matter needs to either be in motion on a macro or micro level in order for time to exist. What this means is that time does not exist without matter and more specifically time does not exist(even as a construct) without matter in motion. As such space in not enough, matter is not enough, it is matter moving through space that allows for the concept of time to emerge. I challenge you to think of a period of time where moving matter is not involved. Even our concept of a day is nothing other than the time it takes for the earth to rotate once around it's axis. A human lifetime is the time it takes for the cells in the body to decay(ie micro changes/movements) to a degree that the body itself is unsustainable. I believe that some clever physicists tried to reformulate Einsteins equations by omitting time from them(an idea I postulated a while ago but never got round to putting it to practice) and guess what it works! Nothing terribly substantive came of it(so far) but maybe in the long run there might be something to this idea, it might be what has been stunting progress in Physics for so long. In other words we do not need time to explain physics but it just so happens to be a useful concept, so for now it's here to stay. So to directly address your statement above you are categorically wrong, time is absolutely an emergent quality! It is emergent from the motion of matter through space and is certainly not fundamental to the universe. One can conceive of a universe with space and matter but the matter is static and as such time does not exist. Pardon my enthusiastic tone, this is a topic I have put a lot of "time" and thought into ;)
His portrayal of Permenides seems distorted, as is most other philosophers' understandings of Permenides. So if you felt the same as them then it would mean that you were also understanding Permenides incorrectly. Don't quote me on this, for I just learned of the guy. But the thing is, I've been working on the exact same theory for years before I even heard of the guy!
I came here because I've been reading V.A.L.I.S. by Philip K Dick. He talks a lot about Parmenides. Btw, don't call an idea preposterous in a video about philosophy. Opinions have no place in the pursuit of truth.
Why does philosophy have to be about the pursuit of truth, why can't it be about the pursuit of happiness, or the pursuit of survival? Isn't the statement "Opinions have no place in the pursuit of truth" an opinion in itself? Have you not simply devalued your perspective through the statement of a paradoxical opinion? What is an opinion to you? Is your opinion your truth? If this is so well why shouldn't somebody elses opinion be their truth? Do you feel that some truths are superior to others? Is there an objective truth? Or are all truths subjective? Maybe philosophy is the pursuit of asking questions, what do you think is most suitable? If you think that one way of seeing is more suitable than another then do you think that you are more inclined to berhave in a certain way and if you are more inclined to behave in a certain way how do you know if that is the best way to behave?
@@Aquasaurousrex You say: Why does philosophy have to be about the pursuit of truth, why can't it be about the pursuit of happiness, or the pursuit of survival? Response: In order to survive we need money. In order to be happy we need wisdom. In order to be wise we need philosophy.
@@MidiwaveProductions Wisdom does not rely on the truth, for what should or should not cannot be proven or known absolutely. Knowledge, however, does rely on truth. I do agree that wisdom should be the ultimate pursuit of philosophy, but philosophers like Parmenides seem to only be concerned with truth.
@@Aquasaurousrex Your response articulated exactly what I've been thinking while trying to digest Parmenides for my philosophy paper. Thank you. I think it is arrogant for humans to only be in constant pursuit of knowledge and truth, and not wisdom and how one should be. These theories on the truth of our existence don't seem to be useful in the way one lives life.
Written, it would seem, by a fan of Plato. Unfortunately, it was Plato who destroyed Western philosophy. The speaker obviously never read the poem by Parmenides. There was nothing convoluted, simply misunderstood by the speaker. A thought exists, that is what Parmenides is referring to. I would love to hear the speaker’s definition of “Some Thing”. All we know is that which we create experience of. Yes, our limited five senses; five holes in a cave looking outward. The holes that create simplicity of infinity. Alas.
How can a ball rolling from rest change from zero velocity to some other velocity .There is an infinite number of velocites between zero and any other velocity ! .So I think Parmenides was correct in stating that ANY change is impossible ! It makes you think ! don't you think?
Idealism Vs Realism, as Worldview, and the difficulty for the modern mind to get into the way of assessing reality for us who are predominantly no longer nominalists, is something it is wise to have an awareness of before engaging with philosophy of yore. Imo anyway.
"Where in fact things do move and change." Always be aware of the presumptions inherit in your speech. If you use the term "things" it means different "things" to different minds. And there's a presumption that there are things. If something is a thing, can it possess a nature? Or a personality? Is the crowd the untruth?
Would a complete theory of Quantum Gravity change your mind if it showed how all these things are an illusion - because one exists - one that physicists have been unable to find any flaws in. They will not use it though as it does not need to include relativity. You see, this would have been a much better video without the negative commentary.
In our mind we can create things and name those things like "a dragon", or even "the past or future". It was this premise that led Parmenides (in Fragment 8 I believe) to the conclusion that if time is an illusion therefore becoming is an illusion as well. It must be noted that this argument is incredibly primitive but is the 1st appearence of a man that develops a systematic thought construct and follows the ramifications to the bitter end no matter what the consequences.
Parmenides did not know that there is air amd exists in space and it only moves to other space when you go there. That it is not empty space where you go. But atill what he said may apply.
I came up with a way of visualizing nothing when I was a child. If you focus on the area of your vision right where your field of view ends, what you "see" or rather don't see beyond that border is what nothing looks like. It's not black, or white or anything, it just... isn't.
Some of these things that all things are one and that things don't really change (past and future already exist, matter and space in-between are all energy at different "conditions", objects and alive beings are energy at different conditions etc )
To paraphrase Ken Wilber, the transrational (that which transcends and includes the rational) always appears absurd to the purely rational person because it is not purely rational. They mistake transrational for prerational as both are, in their way, irrational.
you guys think Parmenides was right? One time when he was telling people that motion did not exist, to which Diogenes' response was to simply get up and walk away
we can't imagine nothing because to imagine nothing is something. so what. does it pump water? people smarter than you ,you can't understand and those duller than you can't understand you. you are alone.
These are interesting unfalsifiable hypotheses I have come to very similar conclusions myself. I think the multiverse would probably be in the shape of a Möbius strip if we are to view these ideas as true
Isn't a vacuum empty space? or that the density of matter varies? Wonder what his response would be to that if he were still alive? It doesn't nullify his argument that matter isn't created nor destroyed but it would give justification to the concept of movement. I mean, through what lens would one justify non-movement?
We can create ideas of things that dont exist but in reality or objective existence this is an impossibility. We can imagine a mystical fire breathing dragon in the act of becoming a dragon but objective existential becoming of anything is an impossibility according to Parmenides. He believes he has insight through reason to determine this presupposition.
You've misconstrued the logic. We can imagine that at the present moment we are becoming a dragon. The imaginative moment DOES exist, but the actual becoming does not. There is, in actuality, the perception of becoming, but the moment never passes to another in which you being what you thought you were becoming. If you believe you are becoming something, you are indefinitely stuck in that moment of believing you are becoming. You will never be what you think you are becoming. You are that moment's perception, lying to yourself that you will someday be what you are not. Not "you" specifically, I'm just creating a picture to explain.
Parmenides is the most underappreciated philosopher, as he gave us the first contribution to our modern Scientific Method. The idea that non-existence cannot be proved (Today we say that we can only prove what we observe) started with him.
Amen, brother. God bless you.
@@genesisbustamante-durian But whoever tried to prove the existence of non-existence ? What exactly do you mean by 'proving non-existence'? Were there philosophers before Parmenides who tried to prove non-existence ?
This is an extraordinarily clear exposition of some extremely difficult and challenging ideas. Thank you!
Also his idea is not paradoxical!! It is paradoxical to someone who does not see the world as he does. If you DO see the world as he does, there is no contradiction toward the appearance. This can actually be said about anyone's views. The narrator of this video does not see time as standing still, so it is contrary to HIS appearances. It is not paradoxical if you view time as not moving.
Even if you do not completely and wholeheartedly experience the world as stopped, if the idea of stopped time rings true enough in your heart an experience of time is only seen as an experience and not the way things are. You would realize that the experience of time passing falls within the truth you live in which you are a moment of experience, so to speak. I'm talking of someone whose perception of reality is not based on the senses. I think many people could relate to this. As an example, you can close your eyes and still believe that in your reality you are in the same place as before you closed them. This illustrates that what we think of our reality can have nothing to do with basic senses such as sight and time. If the idea of still-time is strong enough, it would not be paradoxical to that person.
He is way ahead of his time. I think science will reveal there is truth to these ideas.
But science relies on our perception of things. Imperialism only works within the realm of perception. Take physics. How could we measure anything about a particle if the particle is not differentiable from the rest of the universe. Science can never tell us of a completely objective truth independent of perception because there must be a perceiver to conduct any observation or experiment.
Sorry if I’m being too technical or difficult to understand. Science can never confirm Parmenides’ claims.
Jeffry Davy its called empiricism
@@sasha6454 empiricism*
But yea science relies on nothing
Of course he is ahead of his time, and our time. How could you even make sense of Relativity?
Oh my god you are a lifesaver! I'm taking History of Ancient Philosophy right now and I must say that without your videos I would be lost, hahaha.
I think Parmenides is either insane or way way ahead of his time.
+geirtwo His ideas kind of remind of the Spacetime physical understanding of the world. In that where time is only a fourth dimension of space and everything that ever be is a causal continuation of space into time. In that case movement also doesn't exist, only an amount of 4D entities extending infinitely in all dimensions
You jest described 90% of philosophers
Or maybe we're simply lost in metaphysics since Plato, who killed the notion of Parmenide's equation of though with being. If a being is something ideatic like Plato postulated it is, it is simply not ''present'' anymore like Heidegger says. It becomes a category, a simple notion in the function of language.
So in a sense, he is perhaps still very much ahead of today's philosophy, who is still prety far from becoming truly life manifested and not lost in ideological ''spewings''.
His ideas are similar to many schools of Buddhism and Taoism. It's really impressive though that Parmenides and Heraclitus came to these conclusions on their own without access to a Zen master or anything.
He is talking vedantA
Why were the Greeks so smart? Was it the water?
These same ideas were put forth by the Chinese (see Laozi, Zhuangzi) and the Indians (see Adi Shankara, Buddha, the gunas, etc.) as well. It wasn't just the Greeks. These might actually be reflective of our universal condition.
La Serpiente
Maybe, but in whatever culture they seem to appear, they are depressingly rare occurrences.
White Man Genes account for nothing.
The Greeks were fortunately situated in the crossroads of great civilizations: Egypt, Persia and Babylon. It is written in these ancient texts that Greek philosophers sought instruction from foreign lands.
White Man If you wanted me to be more specific, then you should have asked, instead of resorting to emotional name-calling.
That Thales received instruction from Egypt is stated by Iambilichus, Herodotus, Pamphilia of Epidaurus, and Proclus. That Pythagoras received instruction from Egypt is stated by Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch. That Solon discussed philosophy with Egyptian monks is stated by Plutarch. That Democritus, the most well-travelled of them all, received instruction from India, Ethiopia, Egypt, Babylon, and Chaldea, is stated by Strabo and Laertius.
Ancient Greece was a maritime civilization that stretched as far as modern-day Turkey, and conducted trade with other civilizations through the Mediterranean and the Aegean Seas. The Mediterranean actually connected the major powers at the time. So it would come as no surprise that multi-cultural influences would find their way into the Greek mindset, as with any open mercantile society.
Moreover, it's not very controversial that the Egyptians and Babylonians did actually know how to compute algebraic unknowns, fractions, surface areas and volumes, and even the "Pythagorean" theorem. The Greeks improved upon these ideas and formalized them, but they built on the shoulders of giants. The method of exhaustion was not invented in the civilizations surrounding Greece, but was developed independently later in Ancient China.
That said, I wouldn't respect the opinion of anyone who uses "ya tard" in an intellectual discussion. Not to mention, I couldn't even comprehend your final sentence. So, consider this the last time I would accommodate you. Here's a tip: If you are going to claim racial supremacy, at least behave as if you are intellectually capable. Otherwise, nobody will take you seriously.
I think it stems from the fact they had such an advanced civilisation, meaning they didn't have to work non stop to survive like less advanced cultures/civilisations. So they had security leisure time to think and create these amazing ideas. Just my idea of it.
Parmenides was a true genius. That is why you don’t understand his philosophy. The man invented the laws of logic to prove that all is one. How different is that from Relativity or quantum physics in principle? Parmenides speaks from the point of view of eternity. That is from a much higher state of consciousness then men normally experience. From that point of view nothing does change. All is eternally now in a continuous present. All is being created out of the one being but never changing from that one being. From above we see there is no space to move into. Rather we are created continuously each moment through what appears to be empty space. Most only see the surfaces of things and can not see the one substance (consciousness) that binds all things together in one being. I see no paradoxes at all in his reasoning.
He is one of the great fathers of western civilization and had a huge influence on its development. He was not mad. He was a true spiritual teacher that spoke to us from another world. A world where all is of one being, the eternal continuous now of creation.
"In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, of the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true."
- Russell Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy
An interesting video, but I would have preferred it if the lecturer had not tried to direct our thinking by classifying Parmenides's philosophy as absurd. It deserves more respect than that. At least let us hear what he has to say first without the negativity.
I don't think he meant it in a negative way. He meant it in a philosophical way.
It absolutely is absurd and it's value comes from exposing how complex reasoning works and not from actually shaping a better understanding of reality.
To me, lecturer's depiction as such is not paradoxical in itself, since it seems he tries to defend Parmenides in Parmenides' perception of the world. I understand your reaction but as you see from the explanation of para-doxa, it is contradictory in appearance, which, after moments of self-reflection, allows for "a" possibility of its ("the" Parmenides, "the" assertion etc.) truth in itself.
I don't see any absurdity or negativity......
yes, a bit arrogant
This is the most complicated lecture I’ve heard!
Parmenides is correct my friend, we are stuck in this vicious cycle of experience and knowledge.
Sansara?
This is probably the best video on youtube. Much here for he who seeks truth.
“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.”
-Bill Hicks
The key to understanding Parmenides is the idea that motion and becoming are illusions, because the underlying stuff of existence is eternal and unchanging.
Parmenides is probably the only Greek Philosopher who really got it. Definitely the most brilliant. His thinking is on the same lines of Advaita Vedanta (non-dual philosophy). Advaita Vedanta also claims the reality is Existence, Consciousness and Bliss. The term used for that reality is "Brahman". Everything that we experience is an appearance of that changeless reality which is beyond time, space and causation. That reality and our own reality is one and the same. Only the subject is real, objects are mere appearance borrowing their existence from the subject.
Heraclitus got it too so did others Greeks were something else.
this is a joke right? parmenides would be the first to tell you that he doesn't get it. like he literally created that concept of unknowing nothing no-thing after getting ass blasted by Gorgias. thomas jefferson says it best...He who knows best knows how little he knows. guesses and splashes this wouldn't be you.
@@bannor216 I am not very familiar with Greek philosophy, I come from Advaita Vedanta (AV) background. I had come across fragments of Parmenides and was blown away by it. It is in exact adherence to Advaita Vedanta. "Nor is it divided, since it is all alike;/ and it is not any more there, which would keep it from holding together,/ nor any worse, but it is all replete with What Is./ Therefore it is all continuous: for What Is draws to What Is.” This is exactly how we define reality, as Sat Chit Ananda ( Existence Consciousness & Bliss) or Brahman or Self in AV. Reality cannot be spoken of as words are limiting, but this is the closes words can come to it. Then what about all this flux, constant change we see? Parmenides has the same take as AV. On Guthrie’s strict monist reading, Parmenides’ deduction of the nature of reality led him to conclude “that reality [is], and must be, a unity in the strictest sense and that any change in it [is] impossible” and therefore that “the world as perceived by the senses is unreal” (Guthrie 1965, 4-5). As per AV also creation is an appearance in Brahman and has no reality or has a dependent reality, just like that between a dreamer and dream. Due to ignorance a snake is seen on a rope, but in reality there is only the rope.
There is no snake. Reality erroneously perceived is creation. I can demonstrate from sheer logic and use everyday personal experience that Parmenides was correct. He was simply brilliant.
@Sean Francis Waters Lancaster You are right. Vedanta is one of the 6 Astika ( considers Veda as the authority) Indian philosophies. There are other nastika (does not consider Veda as authority) philosophies like Buddhism, Jainism, Charvaka (materialist) etc. Vedanta has 3 sub philosophies: Dvaita ( dualists), Vishistadvaita (qualified non-dualism) and Advaita (non-dualism). I am talking about Advaita as propounded by Shankaracharya and his guru’s guru, Gaudapada. Any advaitin will find Parmenides writings as purely advaitic, non-dualistic. It is a tragedy why Parmenides has not got much attention. I was blown away by his thoughts when I read the fragments for the first time. Simply brilliant. He should be revered.
All of human reasoning and intuition whether it's from the East or West will arrive to the same path, conclusion, and dead end. The study of philosophy and science are futile endeavors when it comes to understanding reality, albeit necessary ones to distract humans from their plights and prepare them for their physical deaths by fulfilling their curiosity. However, all attempts to rationalize the irrational will come to naught. This was the reason for the Socratic turn, Socrates realizing that you can't understand the nature of reality with reasoning and directed his philosophy towards human affairs.
The twelve minutes weighed more than my three days of reading the assigned texts.
I'm so glad I found this! Finally a philosopher rather than a scientist that agrees with my philosophy!
The problems that people have with his ideas, I would say, are based on understanding the ideas incorrectly. In actuality even time does not change. This does not contradict the experience of time passing. Please consider the fact that you can experience something without it being based on reality. There is no denial that this experience exists and, rather, it is factual that the experience exists. There is the experience of time being part of reality, though time does not pass. There is the experience of objects having an independent existence, though they constantly exchange atoms and are one. The true reality is that there is an existent experience wherein time feels existent. If you assume that time is passing as your experience has told you, you are assuming too much.
However! The non-existence of the passage of time does not make the feeling of time passing irrelevant! It is extremely relevant in the "fake world". There is an entire system of reality that normal people adhere to which has its place. It is real in that it truly is experienced as having truth. A drawing still has a complex existence, but in the actuality it is not what it "claims to be". The drawing is consistent within itself, but does not exist as it seems when considering the fundamental nature of reality. The drawing (aka our perceptual world) is still worth learning about because it has relevance to YOU experiencing it!
What are you asuming time is? Because if we describe it as a physical dimension that represents the succession of states through which matter passes, then it does pass. But if you describe it in other way, then when we say "time" we would be reffering to other thing besides the one that you are describing, so nobody would say (in that definition) that time passed, because then they wouln't be reffering to it (if they know the definition of what they are trying to comunicate, if not you would be bassing your argument in something that they didn't mean).
@@meditati-1524 One state being the relative future of another doesn’t require literal succession. Our organization of these moments is merely for convenience. It allows us to imagine a seamless unfolding.
Since my comment, though, I've decided that individual moments of experience are what's real. That raw sensation or mind-state has sufficient presence. These experiences are ontologically separate, but we can abstract a connection via any similarity. For instance, all real experiences have a conscious attribute. We can pretend that "consciousness" is a space containing experiences. We can compare one to another. I can draw a line from my present to my "relative future." On the way there, I pass through all experiences in that range of transition.
Our traditional direction of time is a pattern that we organize many transitions by. It's especially relevant to us, because we assume its organization as absolute, and we have memories and linear hopes, etc. It's a highly relevant pattern to beings of this universe, since our mental and physical processes are largely dependent on that pattern's coherence. However, if all states really only rely on their own eternal and coherent existence, I can imagine that there're some experiences that don't project a linear pattern.
Logic is a representative form, existent in our imaginations. The inherent truths of logic don't need us, sure, but neither do truths need to literally exist to be true. Anyway, all relational representations have codependent objects in spaces of similarity. I can experience two pencils and an eraser. They relate to each other in measurable ways, and they relate to the experience for some source of existence.
All possible and impossible relations are inherent in nonexistence. I'm not saying that nonexistence is something that exists, but that concepts are always the same, if they're defined the same way, as you seemed to be pointing out. Hopefully I illustrated the part of my logic that you asked about.
@@immedi8Minds Projection is a mental deviation.
@@rajarsi6438 That's what I'm saying, but you probably mean it differently, only to wave away my claims.
@@immedi8Minds Well, you've stated: 'OUR perceptual world'.
Another thing: in your experience, where does the fake world take place, who supplies it and on what basis?
Parmenides perceived things AS THEY ARE, which is by nature contradictory to our own perceiving mode. One cannot comprehend the world through a fragment. That's preposterous, not Parmenides final conclusion. He was the mystic of the west, his realizations matches that of hindus mystics.
Dude just came up with the deterministic view of reality no problem. What a chad
He got a truth that is too simple for the conditioned mind to accept: I have to use my imagined past or future (strictly images that reside in the mind) to prove that anything ever moves.
You know you're in for a rough ride when his ideas are dismissed as preposterous in the first minute...
You calling his ideas the most absurd in philosophy is in itself absurd. He has validity. Literally, the natural law stating that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" confirms what he was stating way back then.
absolutley amazing!!! thank you so so much. This taught me more than an entire semester of lectures :)
I love you so much!! Please keep making videos. Thank you for taking the time and explaining the videos. Please don't be afraid of making longer videos.
The Greeks were so smart because their culture placed high reverence on thinking.
“Even as you seek wisdom, so shall wisdom seek you.”
The best and most influential philosopher of all time
+Vivek Yadav there is no truth just opinion , how ever the African Tehuti and his emerald tablet is #1 .
the20hr rule "There is no truth" but how could you be so certain of this statement itself, I mean how do you know this statement is itself true? Goodluck
What is true to me may not be true to you . my reality is not yours . Your reality is only true to you . But all Greeks knew the 7 teachings of Tahiti especially after Aristoteles arrival to Egypt . Have you read the Kybalion you can down load it for free on amazon it's very eye opening to the type of thinking that was happening 4000-5000 years ago.
Vivek Yadav Great answer by the way your a very good thinker. I hope life brings you blessings .
@@oliver-ts4so severely low iq dribble
Wayy ahead of his time. Amazing.
Heraclitus did believe in an objective truth. The logos, the fundamental principle that structures reality from the inside and governs all through all. "For it is wise to say that all is one, and one is all". While everything changes, the logos remains. According to Heraclitus the Logos is the essence of the Cosmos, that transforms, orders and structures the universe according to its law/proportion".
Good lecture, very informative, but full of opinion. A distinctly uncharitable interpretation of Parmenides.
💎🏆 Great insightful & fruitful video on Life and Philosophy of Parmenides : The Father of Metaphysics 🏆💎
❤💙💚 Grateful for this channel ❤💙💚
📜Parmenides Quote:
“Let reason alone decide.”
This is a very nice introduction to Parmenides's thought. To the Academy of Ideas: It would be GREAT if you would get the CC's professionally formatted so that instructors could freely use it in their courses.
literally just saved my life! thank you!
Thank you so much for composing these videos.
oh my god
i think i'm gonna have to watch this ten times before i finally get it
Very good video! Heraclitus process of ceaseless change of continuous flux and decay is the most logical if the Universe is a continuum of continuous energy exchange.
Calls Parmenides ideas preposterous, though they can’t be refuted. Lol cute opinions
@ger du perceiving yourself and others in the first place is a posteriori. Parmenides can't be refuted.
His ideas kind of remind of the Spacetime physical understanding of the world. In that where time is only a fourth dimension of space and everything that ever be is a causal continuation of space into time. In that case movement also doesn't exist, only an amount of 4D entities extending infinitely in all dimensions
.
+parasiticjustice www.azquotes.com/quote/1344938
Nimayi Dixit Wow. Here's where the statement 'Philosophy is the mother of all sciences' shine through..
@@nimayidixit3496 if that quote is true, then Einstein clearly didn't understand Parmenides because he reified space and time.... LOL
Sounds a lot like conservation of mass/energy, it's amazing how many scientific laws they hint at using only reason
After doing my research.. this video make it easier.. thank you 🥺
There fore infinity so nothing can be measured. No sequences. No Time. He was telling the Truth.
THanks for these videos!!
This makes perfect sense to me and I'm sure something is screwed incorrectly in my brain.
Superb. Good job. (Just got through reading Plato's dialogue "Parmenides.")
Parmenides is talking about the nature of the nature of reality namely God and rightly so. Whitout Parmenides no Socrates- Plato- Aristotle
you are a genius. now I can pass my exam :)
THIS IS BEAUTIFUL
Crystal clear..
Interesting to listen to after reading "Reality is not what it seems" by Donald Hoffman. I'm no panpsychist by any stretch of the imagination but that book did convince me that reality as we experience it, is nothing like reality outside ourselves. not so far of from Parmenides
Speed of light. Relativity. Buddhism. Past, present and future all IN ONe.
Cool! This would really help in our recitation!
i will pass because of you. thank you.
nicely done. very understandable ;)
Brilliant!Thanks!
This needs more views.
I actually was really interested in the ideas of Parmenides due to the fletcher's paradox (which apparently is also known as the Arrow paradox or Zeno's paradoxes (Zeno being a supporter of Parmenides' ideas))... It feels like a very significant problem with how we understand the passage of space/time... Apparently I'm seeing there are proposed solutions to the problem so maybe I'll find one that is convincing, but yeah... The idea is that if you shoot an arrow then in any SPECIFIC moment in time during that arrow's flight (imagine taking a picture of the arrow in flight) you cannot say that in that exact moment that arrow is moving from where it is (in the photo) to where it is not... It's not like a GIF... It's basically just static and frozen in one place in that moment of time/photo...
Movement and rest are unintelligible notions when divorced from the context of the concept of time. Try to think of a timeless movement, or a rest period that took no time.
Very helpful video.
2H2 + O2 → 2H2O That will never change. No matter what man writes on a piece of paper.
Semester just started. Missed you bro
Great lecture 🔥
Am I wrong to assert that Parmenides is expounding a Transcendental theory of Being the way Kant thought of it? Since he disregards the representations of Time and Space and the Categories to come to an understanding of the Noumenal world. Plato then takes a step backwards, again using the concepts of the Transcendental analytic (Unity, Causality, and such) and aesthetic (time and space) in his theory Forms, and as a consequence the whole of Western philosophy until Kant being stuck again in metaphysical wordplay.
Sounds absolutely right! I felt there was some good within the philosophy of Plato, but that in most parts he was making crazy assertions and a system built on crap. I did not know that the good I had felt within it was the philosophy of Parmenides that he butchered out of misunderstanding.
I think Hegel debunked all of their views.
Parmenides's and bhagwan sri Ramana maharshi's philosophy are somewhat alike.
great video!
Space is inconceivable without time, and vice versa. These are not two separate categories, but a single category of space-time continuum in which time and space have their being.
Time does not exist, it is a human invention and the only thing it measure is relative motion. Where there is no motion there is no time.
@@Crypt0n1an time is real and is likely the only aspect of reality we experience directly that is fundamental and not emergent from anything else
@@SDSen Nonsense, the only thing that is real is space, matter/energy and the movement of matter/energy in that space. Time is a human construct(and as such an illusion) that measures relative motion. When we say one second what do we mean? Well last time I checked 1 second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom". In other words matter needs to either be in motion on a macro or micro level in order for time to exist. What this means is that time does not exist without matter and more specifically time does not exist(even as a construct) without matter in motion. As such space in not enough, matter is not enough, it is matter moving through space that allows for the concept of time to emerge.
I challenge you to think of a period of time where moving matter is not involved. Even our concept of a day is nothing other than the time it takes for the earth to rotate once around it's axis. A human lifetime is the time it takes for the cells in the body to decay(ie micro changes/movements) to a degree that the body itself is unsustainable. I believe that some clever physicists tried to reformulate Einsteins equations by omitting time from them(an idea I postulated a while ago but never got round to putting it to practice) and guess what it works! Nothing terribly substantive came of it(so far) but maybe in the long run there might be something to this idea, it might be what has been stunting progress in Physics for so long. In other words we do not need time to explain physics but it just so happens to be a useful concept, so for now it's here to stay.
So to directly address your statement above you are categorically wrong, time is absolutely an emergent quality! It is emergent from the motion of matter through space and is certainly not fundamental to the universe. One can conceive of a universe with space and matter but the matter is static and as such time does not exist.
Pardon my enthusiastic tone, this is a topic I have put a lot of "time" and thought into ;)
If I say that I don't feel alienated by this, does it mean I haven't grasped the ontology of Parmenides?
His portrayal of Permenides seems distorted, as is most other philosophers' understandings of Permenides. So if you felt the same as them then it would mean that you were also understanding Permenides incorrectly. Don't quote me on this, for I just learned of the guy. But the thing is, I've been working on the exact same theory for years before I even heard of the guy!
Very interesting, gives a better sense of the path to western theological thinking, & how old these questions & models are. :)
I came here because I've been reading V.A.L.I.S. by Philip K Dick. He talks a lot about Parmenides.
Btw, don't call an idea preposterous in a video about philosophy. Opinions have no place in the pursuit of truth.
Why does philosophy have to be about the pursuit of truth, why can't it be about the pursuit of happiness, or the pursuit of survival? Isn't the statement "Opinions have no place in the pursuit of truth" an opinion in itself? Have you not simply devalued your perspective through the statement of a paradoxical opinion?
What is an opinion to you? Is your opinion your truth? If this is so well why shouldn't somebody elses opinion be their truth? Do you feel that some truths are superior to others? Is there an objective truth? Or are all truths subjective?
Maybe philosophy is the pursuit of asking questions, what do you think is most suitable? If you think that one way of seeing is more suitable than another then do you think that you are more inclined to berhave in a certain way and if you are more inclined to behave in a certain way how do you know if that is the best way to behave?
@@Aquasaurousrex You say: Why does philosophy have to be about the pursuit of truth, why can't it be about the pursuit of happiness, or the pursuit of survival?
Response: In order to survive we need money. In order to be happy we need wisdom. In order to be wise we need philosophy.
@@MidiwaveProductions Wisdom does not rely on the truth, for what should or should not cannot be proven or known absolutely. Knowledge, however, does rely on truth. I do agree that wisdom should be the ultimate pursuit of philosophy, but philosophers like Parmenides seem to only be concerned with truth.
@@Aquasaurousrex Your response articulated exactly what I've been thinking while trying to digest Parmenides for my philosophy paper. Thank you. I think it is arrogant for humans to only be in constant pursuit of knowledge and truth, and not wisdom and how one should be. These theories on the truth of our existence don't seem to be useful in the way one lives life.
Written, it would seem, by a fan of Plato. Unfortunately, it was Plato who destroyed Western philosophy. The speaker obviously never read the poem by Parmenides. There was nothing convoluted, simply misunderstood by the speaker. A thought exists, that is what Parmenides is referring to. I would love to hear the speaker’s definition of “Some Thing”. All we know is that which we create experience of. Yes, our limited five senses; five holes in a cave looking outward. The holes that create simplicity of infinity.
Alas.
I love the videos. It would be interesting to see transcripts with them. That's just an idea though. Even without them the videos are great.
+Clark Smith Thanks. You can find transcripts for most of the videos at academyofideas.com
Awesome!
How can a ball rolling from rest change from zero velocity to some other velocity .There is an infinite number of velocites between zero and any other velocity ! .So I think Parmenides was correct in stating that ANY change is impossible ! It makes you think ! don't you think?
Idealism Vs Realism, as Worldview, and the difficulty for the modern mind to get into the way of assessing reality for us who are predominantly no longer nominalists, is something it is wise to have an awareness of before engaging with philosophy of yore. Imo anyway.
"Where in fact things do move and change." Always be aware of the presumptions inherit in your speech. If you use the term "things" it means different "things" to different minds. And there's a presumption that there are things. If something is a thing, can it possess a nature? Or a personality? Is the crowd the untruth?
It seems to me the Eleatic conception is caused by a limitation in language. Perhaps language is merely a symbol?
Would a complete theory of Quantum Gravity change your mind if it showed how all these things are an illusion - because one exists - one that physicists have been unable to find any flaws in. They will not use it though as it does not need to include relativity. You see, this would have been a much better video without the negative commentary.
Wow...Einstein prooved this guy right.
He was actually right in saying motion is an illusion as the universe is really a still 4D shape, time is more like it loading
In our mind we can create things and name those things like "a dragon", or even "the past or future". It was this premise that led Parmenides (in Fragment 8 I believe) to the conclusion that if time is an illusion therefore becoming is an illusion as well. It must be noted that this argument is incredibly primitive but is the 1st appearence of a man that develops a systematic thought construct and follows the ramifications to the bitter end no matter what the consequences.
Actually, if you slow down and think about what he says, you can understand it.
Parmenides did not know that there is air amd exists in space and it only moves to other space when you go there.
That it is not empty space where you go.
But atill what he said may apply.
sounds good to me:D pbs space time did say that we are just lines of events in spacetime with the future being as real as the past.
I came up with a way of visualizing nothing when I was a child. If you focus on the area of your vision right where your field of view ends, what you "see" or rather don't see beyond that border is what nothing looks like. It's not black, or white or anything, it just... isn't.
Some of these things that all things are one and that things don't really change (past and future already exist, matter and space in-between are all energy at different "conditions", objects and alive beings are energy at different conditions etc )
Life is a dream comes true
And death is its awakening.
What shall I be after I die ?
I shall be an astral subtle body traveling das universe.
They all have features that explain the reality of this world. They are all right and wrong at the same Time.
Can we superhuman them into one being.
To paraphrase Ken Wilber, the transrational (that which transcends and includes the rational) always appears absurd to the purely rational person because it is not purely rational. They mistake transrational for prerational as both are, in their way, irrational.
Good video, well presented. But, I have doubts on assigning any idea to Plato since he minimally write anything in the 1st person.
What book can I pick up on this subject?
Please post more videos about Presocratics
"No flux no love." - Wald Wassermann
Platonic Form: Mind: Being
Reality: Senses: Becoming
Thank you
Bruhhhhhh he explained 4Th dimension in 500 BCE
He explained how consciousness works outside the physical reality. The invisible world
you guys think Parmenides was right? One time when he was telling people that motion did not exist, to which Diogenes' response was to simply get up and walk away
Yeah I agree, the absolute arrogance of the pseudo intellectuals of RUclips comments blows my mind.
Yes, but when Diogenes walked away he didn't go anywhere because he was still trapped in the eternal totality of existence.
@@browngreen933 lmao
we can't imagine nothing because to imagine nothing is something. so what. does it pump water? people smarter than you ,you can't understand and those duller than you can't understand you. you are alone.
These are interesting unfalsifiable hypotheses I have come to very similar conclusions myself. I think the multiverse would probably be in the shape of a Möbius strip if we are to view these ideas as true
i honestly agree w him
I imagine parmenides would have rejected the concept of Zero as well
Isn't a vacuum empty space? or that the density of matter varies? Wonder what his response would be to that if he were still alive?
It doesn't nullify his argument that matter isn't created nor destroyed but it would give justification to the concept of movement.
I mean, through what lens would one justify non-movement?
thanks
We can create ideas of things that dont exist but in reality or objective existence this is an impossibility. We can imagine a mystical fire breathing dragon in the act of becoming a dragon but objective existential becoming of anything is an impossibility according to Parmenides. He believes he has insight through reason to determine this presupposition.
You've misconstrued the logic. We can imagine that at the present moment we are becoming a dragon. The imaginative moment DOES exist, but the actual becoming does not. There is, in actuality, the perception of becoming, but the moment never passes to another in which you being what you thought you were becoming. If you believe you are becoming something, you are indefinitely stuck in that moment of believing you are becoming. You will never be what you think you are becoming. You are that moment's perception, lying to yourself that you will someday be what you are not. Not "you" specifically, I'm just creating a picture to explain.
Extreme Rationalist