Comments on: Parmenides—father of modern thought http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:49:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Holger Schnaak http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-6030 Holger Schnaak Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:29:14 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-6030 Hello Raymond I can prove Parmenides thoughts through the complexity reduction theory. Please conatct me via e-mail. Regards Holger Hans Friedrich Schnaak Melbourne, Australia Yet, argues Tallis, with much of contemporary science running into dead ends—the search for a grand unified theory of everything, the attempt to understand the mysteries of human consciousness—it may be time to revisit the “Parmenidian moment,” to see if there might be an alternative “cognitive journey” from the one the pre-Socratic philosopher set us on 2,500 years ago. Hello Raymond

I can prove Parmenides thoughts through the complexity reduction theory.

Please conatct me via e-mail.

Regards

Holger Hans Friedrich Schnaak

Melbourne, Australia

Yet, argues Tallis, with much of contemporary science running into dead ends—the search for a grand unified theory of everything, the attempt to understand the mysteries of human consciousness—it may be time to revisit the “Parmenidian moment,” to see if there might be an alternative “cognitive journey” from the one the pre-Socratic philosopher set us on 2,500 years ago.

]]> By: Lambie Mavrides http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3246 Lambie Mavrides Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:02:12 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3246 When Parmenides pronounces that “thinking and the thought ‘it is’ are the same”, he does not at the same time have in mind either Newton’s universe of space and time or Einstein’s block universe of spacetime. He did not need these. Dr. Sallis thinks (p. 4) that “Without a distance between the thought and its objects, so that the thought can exist in the absence of its object, thought would not be about anything”, and thus Parmenides’ pronouncement invalidates thought itself. And thus he is guilty of a “fundamental error”. Undoubtedly, Parmenides provides for no space (distance) between thought and ‘it is’. But why should he? The philosopher-poet merely speaks about the two (thought and thinking about ‘it is’) as being the same, i.e. inseparable and complementary in thought. Things can only be real in thought, not by themselves. Hence, “real” things not inherent in our thought can only be illusory. These make up the ever-changing Heraclitian “reality” of the senses. Plato subsequently elucidates, as a kind of a most important “footnote”, the situation with his Forms or Ideas, which he enthrones as the only reality. When Parmenides pronounces that “thinking and the thought ‘it is’ are the same”, he does not at the same time have in mind either Newton’s universe of space and time or Einstein’s block universe of spacetime. He did not need these. Dr. Sallis thinks (p. 4) that “Without a distance between the thought and its objects, so that the thought can exist in the absence of its object, thought would not be about anything”, and thus Parmenides’ pronouncement invalidates thought itself. And thus he is guilty of a “fundamental error”. Undoubtedly, Parmenides provides for no space (distance) between thought and ‘it is’. But why should he? The philosopher-poet merely speaks about the two (thought and thinking about ‘it is’) as being the same, i.e. inseparable and complementary in thought. Things can only be real in thought, not by themselves. Hence, “real” things not inherent in our thought can only be illusory. These make up the ever-changing Heraclitian “reality” of the senses. Plato subsequently elucidates, as a kind of a most important “footnote”, the situation with his Forms or Ideas, which he enthrones as the only reality.

]]> By: T.R. http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3245 T.R. Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:58:25 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3245 "But what if a Philosopher King was alive today .." Actually, there exist examples of philosopher-scientists whom to compare with such antique figures could be interesting, e.g.: http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~leila/grothendieckcircle/biographic.php “But what if a Philosopher King was alive today ..”

Actually, there exist examples of philosopher-scientists whom to compare with such antique figures could be interesting, e.g.:
http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~leila/grothendieckcircle/biographic.php

]]> By: Russell Johnston http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3241 Russell Johnston Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:18:28 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3241 Read Greek history and I think you'll have a very different understanding of the rise of the ancient importance of reason. Internal to cities: wealth, intermarriage and force held far more importance than reason. But the ancient Greek historians recount again and again how critical reason and rhetoric were as a military force multiplier amongst diverse city states without permanent alliances. Conflicts in such multiplayer games were won by those who could persuade others to temporary alliances of interest, faith, heritage, or anything else that seemed appealing. Reason was a desperately important survival skill. Read Greek history and I think you’ll have a very different understanding of the rise of the ancient importance of reason.

Internal to cities: wealth, intermarriage and force held far more importance than reason. But the ancient Greek historians recount again and again how critical reason and rhetoric were as a military force multiplier amongst diverse city states without permanent alliances. Conflicts in such multiplayer games were won by those who could persuade others to temporary alliances of interest, faith, heritage, or anything else that seemed appealing.

Reason was a desperately important survival skill.

]]> By: Sumant Rawat http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3240 Sumant Rawat Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:57:57 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3240 Nice article that unfortunately gives too much credit to Parmenides and does not highlight the narrow domain of logic used by the Eleatics (recall Zeno's popular demonstration of the impossibilty of motion)as in Parmenides 'Being'.To quote Santayana Being exists and nothing else does;whereby every relation and variation in experience is reduced to a negligible illusion.... Nice article that unfortunately gives too much credit to Parmenides and does not highlight the narrow domain of logic used by the Eleatics (recall Zeno’s popular demonstration of the impossibilty of motion)as in Parmenides ‘Being’.To quote Santayana Being exists and nothing else does;whereby every relation and variation in experience is reduced to a negligible illusion….

]]> By: Carl S. Webber http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3239 Carl S. Webber Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:43:04 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3239 The concluding words of the article "Precisely because Parmenides was our great beginning, we should try to reimagine his thought and its consequences, in the hope of awakening out of his awakening to one more closely answering to our need for wholeness of understanding." have the flavor (pardon the metaphor) of a prayer, rather than a logical argument. It expresses what is often called "a pious hope" It is questonable whether any prayer gets answered; it is more likely that not every question has an answer. The concluding words of the article

“Precisely because Parmenides was our great beginning, we should try to reimagine his thought and its consequences, in the hope of awakening out of his awakening to one more closely answering to our need for wholeness of understanding.”

have the flavor (pardon the metaphor) of a prayer, rather than a logical argument. It expresses what is often called “a pious hope”

It is questonable whether any prayer gets answered; it is more likely that not every question has an answer.

]]> By: Brian Switzer http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3235 Brian Switzer Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:48:20 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3235 I would like to point out that the translation of Parmenides' expression "to gar auto..." is best rendered as "the self-same thing can be said of Being and Thinking." Fragment 3 thus points us to the wonderful affinity between Being (what is ) and our ability to grasp it in thought. Hegel's fundamental insight about the identity of the rational and the actual is what makes Parmenides' primal thought so key to the history of philosophy and to the victory of the Western project. I would like to point out that the translation of Parmenides’ expression “to gar auto…” is best rendered as “the self-same thing can be said of Being and Thinking.” Fragment 3 thus points us to the wonderful affinity between Being (what is ) and our ability to grasp it in thought. Hegel’s fundamental insight about the identity of the rational and the actual is what makes Parmenides’ primal thought so key to the history of philosophy and to the victory of the Western project.

]]> By: Michael Zeleny http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3234 Michael Zeleny Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:13:08 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3234 Dr Tallis' attribution of "a fundamental error" to Parmenides rests on willful neglect of subsequent interpretations. It makes sense to interpret Fragment 3, "Thinking and the thought 'it is' are the same", as saying that it is impossible to think of something that does not exist. I prefer to interpret this passage more cautiously with Plato, whose Eleatic Stranger challenges Theaetetus to try with might and main to say something correctly about not-being, without attributing to it either existence or unity or plurality. (Sophist, 239b) This reading agrees with the tradition inaugurated by the Megarians and the Stoics, and recovered by the founder of modern logic Gottlob Frege and his foremost exponent Alonzo Church, in a concise formilation that "nothing can be said truly about that, which does not exist." This critically qualified reading of Eleatic doctrine in no way contradicts the commonsensical observation that we are always thinking of things that have no reality outside of our thought, for want of demonstration that we are, or can be, thinking about them truly. Even beyond that, truthful entertaining of explicit possibility can be readily reconciled with Dr. Tallis' austere interpretation of Parmenides by following the Stoics and their philosophical heirs. Under their account, the same terms that denote things and express their concepts in their ordinary use, denote the same concepts and express concepts of these concepts within the contexts of propositional attitudes. Such contexts arise whenever our thought turns away from warranted realities to contemplate what might be the case, rather than what is the case. And since concepts exist eternally and unchangeably, suffering neither becoming nor extinction, all objects of our thought inherit their warrant for being. Dr Tallis’ attribution of “a fundamental error” to Parmenides rests on willful neglect of subsequent interpretations. It makes sense to interpret Fragment 3, “Thinking and the thought ‘it is’ are the same”, as saying that it is impossible to think of something that does not exist. I prefer to interpret this passage more cautiously with Plato, whose Eleatic Stranger challenges Theaetetus to try with might and main to say something correctly about not-being, without attributing to it either existence or unity or plurality. (Sophist, 239b) This reading agrees with the tradition inaugurated by the Megarians and the Stoics, and recovered by the founder of modern logic Gottlob Frege and his foremost exponent Alonzo Church, in a concise formilation that “nothing can be said truly about that, which does not exist.” This critically qualified reading of Eleatic doctrine in no way contradicts the commonsensical observation that we are always thinking of things that have no reality outside of our thought, for want of demonstration that we are, or can be, thinking about them truly. Even beyond that, truthful entertaining of explicit possibility can be readily reconciled with Dr. Tallis’ austere interpretation of Parmenides by following the Stoics and their philosophical heirs. Under their account, the same terms that denote things and express their concepts in their ordinary use, denote the same concepts and express concepts of these concepts within the contexts of propositional attitudes. Such contexts arise whenever our thought turns away from warranted realities to contemplate what might be the case, rather than what is the case. And since concepts exist eternally and unchangeably, suffering neither becoming nor extinction, all objects of our thought inherit their warrant for being.

]]> By: Gary L. Herstein http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3232 Gary L. Herstein Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:32:26 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3232 For my $0.02 worth, I would point to the irony of opening with a quote from Whitehead and ending with a speculation on how we are to move away from the "Parmenidean Block" vision of reality. Whitehead's philosophy of organism is precisely such an attempt. As a scientist himself, ANW had the "chops" (a theatrical term) to both do and understand science in its contemporary form. The philosophical underpinnings and motivations (if not the detailed mathematical exposition itself) of his alternative theory of space and gravity to Einstein's (Parmenidean) general relativity remains alive today in the form of MoND and Bimetric theories -- pity the scientists proposing these don't know their own history. Anyway, thanks to Dr. Tallis for this piece. For my $0.02 worth, I would point to the irony of opening with a quote from Whitehead and ending with a speculation on how we are to move away from the “Parmenidean Block” vision of reality. Whitehead’s philosophy of organism is precisely such an attempt. As a scientist himself, ANW had the “chops” (a theatrical term) to both do and understand science in its contemporary form. The philosophical underpinnings and motivations (if not the detailed mathematical exposition itself) of his alternative theory of space and gravity to Einstein’s (Parmenidean) general relativity remains alive today in the form of MoND and Bimetric theories — pity the scientists proposing these don’t know their own history.

Anyway, thanks to Dr. Tallis for this piece.

]]> By: John http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3231 John Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:03:30 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/12/19/parmenides%e2%80%94father-of-modern-thought/#comment-3231 Perhaps its an indication of how fragmented and divorced from a living well of True Wisdom that we have become, that we always have to return to the Wisdom, via their philosophy, of the elders. The trouble is the mere doing of philosophy in the conventional sense as it done in the academy (or anywhere else), never really changes anything---and is really just a lot of superficial word games with no real depth. It may, or may not, make one more tolerant and ecumenical in ones disposition towards others. But what if a Philosopher King was alive today whose "philosophy" and the Way of life that He offers says everything that the ancients from ALL cultures, not just those of the West, said, but even more so, and with extraordinary brilliance---impossible of course!!! Please check out these references. 1. http://www.kneeoflistening.com 2. http://global.adidam.org/books/eleutherios.html 3. http://www.adidamla.org/newsletters/newsletter-aprilmay2006.pdf 4. http://global.adidam.org/books/transcendental-realism.html 5. http://global.adidam.org/books/mummery.html 6. http://www.adidam.org/death_and_dying/index.html 7. http://www.adidam.in/eastwest.asp Perhaps its an indication of how fragmented and divorced from a living well of True Wisdom that we have become, that we always have to return to the Wisdom, via their philosophy, of the elders.

The trouble is the mere doing of philosophy in the conventional sense as it done in the academy (or anywhere else), never really changes anything—and is really just a lot of superficial word games with no real depth. It may, or may not, make one more tolerant and ecumenical in ones disposition towards others.

But what if a Philosopher King was alive today whose “philosophy” and the Way of life that He offers says everything that the ancients from ALL cultures, not just those of the West, said, but even more so, and with extraordinary brilliance—impossible of course!!!

Please check out these references.

1. http://www.kneeoflistening.com
2. http://global.adidam.org/books/eleutherios.html
3. http://www.adidamla.org/newsletters/newsletter-aprilmay2006.pdf
4. http://global.adidam.org/books/transcendental-realism.html
5. http://global.adidam.org/books/mummery.html
6. http://www.adidam.org/death_and_dying/index.html
7. http://www.adidam.in/eastwest.asp

]]>