‘Being’ is all there is

An explanation of the philosophical thought of the Greek thinker Parmenides.

Photo by Yevhenii Aihubov on Unsplash

Parmenides was born in the Greek city of Elea, on the southern coast of Italy. He is believed to have lived from the late 6th century to the mid 5th century BCE.

Following are the various titles that have been given to him:

1. ‘Father of Metaphysics’ — as he was the first philosopher to inquire into the nature of existence. This title was attributed to him by Aristotle.
2. ‘Father of Logic’ — as he was the first to use deduction and the concept of a-priori truths to support his arguments, even before Aristotle.
3. ‘Founder of Eleatic School’ — which dealt with arguments about there being an unchanging singular reality.

Significance of Parmenides’ Philosophical Contributions

Parmenides was perhaps the first philosopher to abjectly reject the senses. He believed that the previous (Ionian) philosophers’ physical cosmogony — their approach of thinking of the ‘archae’ in terms of material and change is wrong, as it is dependent on and is drawing from what is provided from the senses, which are deceptive. He believed that they operated with doxa (which means what is accepted at large), or the way of false, and this dependency (on doxa and the senses) is misplaced. It presents ‘change’ and ‘becoming’ as true, which they are not (as will be explained later in the blog). Parmenides’ philosophy is paradox in this sense — as it is counter to the doxa. His own system of thought is based on logic and metaphysics. It was further developed by Zeno of Elea (his student) and Melissus of Samos, and significantly influenced the later philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. (For example — Plato’s Theory of Forms builds upon the Parmedian notion of change being an illusion — that only ‘appearances’ change and not their ‘essences’.)

Writing Style

Parmenides had a particularly interesting way of writing in a poetic format. His only surviving work, a poem that has been titled On Nature, is in the dactyl hexameter style.

One notable thing about his writing is his argumentation style. Unlike the philosophers who preceded him, Parmenides did not use allegorical argumentation. His was a more formal style of argumentation which employed, perhaps for the first time in the history of Western thought, the logical form of deduction. Such a form focuses only on the structure of the argument for judging its validity. It is independent of the senses. The theories proposed by him invoked a logical necessity, as opposed to invoking natural/empirical necessity. The former, unlike the latter, is always held — and hence has a perfectly legitimate claim at universality. Wisdom, as per him, is capable of being reached once the world of senses has been bracketed. Thus, in contrast with Heraclitan and other pre-Socratic thought, Parmenidean thought only depended on intelligibility, and not sensibility.

Being and Non-Being as Described in ‘On Nature’

The poem is divided into 3 parts — 1) Proem or the preface, 2) Alethea or the way of truth and 3) Doxa or the way of opinion. The Alethea portion (the way of truth) will be discussed in some detail.

Three paths of inquiry are described —

1. That something is (path of being)
2. That something is not (path of non-being)
3. That something is and is not, both (path of being and non-being)

Alethea — Way of Truth

Central Tautology

The main assertion made by Parmenides is that the tautology — “It is necessary to think and say that Being is and not being is not” needs to be realized and accepted (as it is an indubitable statement). This statement is necessary in the sense that it cannot be denied by a rational person. It is not a contingent statement as it does not depend upon anything else for its truth.

Parmenides’ ‘is’ can be understood in any and all of the three ways — as existence, predicate and truth. The question of the nature of existence can only be answered by conducting an enquiry into the nature of the being. Parmenides believes for the second path — the path of non-being, to be nonsensical. He justifies this by saying that the non-being is inconceivable, and since it is inconceivable, it cannot exist. And since the second path is nonsensical, the third path is, consequently, also nonsensical as it depends on the truth of both the first and the second path, of which only the former is there. Thus, a journey on the second and the third path is a futile and a ‘backward’ one. It is the senses that mislead us into thinking that such paths are possible. The path of truth, or Alethea, is divorced from the senses and employs only logos or reason to evaluate the truth — that is the nature of being. He believes that since he is providing a deductive argument (which is independent of senses) to prove his conclusion, it does not matter where he begins, as tautologies are self evident. His argument therefore must be unalienable and necessary, as the premises are given by reason alone.

Existence as Conceivability — There is an assumption that Parmenides makes, on which his philosophy rests. That which is existent is equated with that which is conceivable. And inversely, non-existence can be equated with inconceivability, which is in the case of non-being. This is the problem of negative facts — the world can only be understood in terms of what is, and never in terms of what is not. It is important to note that the word ‘conceivable’ is not replaceable with ‘conceived’ as only the potentiality of the property of conceivability is required for an object to be existent, and not an actuality of being conceived. Thus, existence is not limited by a finite subject. (This fundamental assumption has later received criticism as the acceptability of equating non-existence with the impossibility of existence has been questioned.)

Why Non-Being is Nonsensical — Since one cannot think about or conceive of the non-being, its nature cannot be enquired about.

Existence ≡ Conceivability

Non-Existence ≡ Non-Conceivability

Inference of Other Necessary Truths

From the central tautology explained above, which is — Being is and not being is not, the following necessary truths can be logically inferred from the argument given below:

Parmenides invokes the form of Modus Tollens, which is — If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.

Premise 1 (P implies (not Q)) — If it becomes, then surely it must not have been before.

Premise 2 (Not (not Q)) — But it cannot not be before. (As non-being is an impossibility)

Conclusion (Not P) — Therefore, it never becomes.

Thus, it follows from the above that being always has been (and will be) and that the question of becoming cannot arise.

Being does not arise from Not-Being — Suppose X is being and Not-X is not-being. If, at T1, there is not-X, and if at T2, there is X, this means that between T1 and T2, something happened that caused X to come about from not-X, or nothing. But something cannot be generated from nothing. Even if we posit the existence of a creator, since X is not at a specific point of time, there is nothing for a creator to generate X from. Hence, whatever is not, cannot be. And whatever is, always has and will be. This shows that the being is not generated and was never becoming. Here, Parmenides has used the principle of ‘Ex Nihilo, Nihil Fit’ — nothing can come from nothing.

Denial of Temporality —That which does not exist cannot exist. And what is, or what exists, always has and always will exist. There is no origin or destruction. Thus, the being is beyond the concept of temporality. In stating that existence cannot depend on time, Parmenides asserts that the being is independent of finitude.

Denial of Change — Since the notion of being does not invoke the notion of time, there can be no change, because change demands time (object 1 at T1 changing to object 2 at T2). Parmenides denies the reliability of the senses and believes that it is dissociated from the truth. It is senses that make us believe that there is change — which implies becoming and not-being — which is an impossibility.

Denial of Motion/Being is Stable— From the denial of change, it follows that motion is impossible as if it were possible it would imply that being could change from here to there, from being to not-being. But this is inconceivable and thus impossible.

Eternality and Infiniteness of Being — The above leads us to the eternality of being. Had the being not been infinite or complete within itself, it would have been bound by something else, the not-being. But there is no not-being. If whatever is not, cannot be, then what is, always is. All that is there must always have been there.

Being as Singular and Complete— Parmenides was one of the earliest non-dualists. He rejected diversity as a deception of the senses and believed that all is one, and is complete. (It is important to not confuse monism with non-dualism). If a being, A, is incomplete — it indicates a lack. And lack indicates not-being, which is inconceivable. Being is marked by absolute completeness — it is devoid of any kind of lack.

He showed that the being is one by showing how diversity leads to infinite regress. (In the tradition of Philosophy, infinite regress is an indication of a determinatory problem as it does not allow one to assert anything about a thing).

For differentiation to come about — one would need to make sense of what is NOT (which, as per Parmenides has been established as inconceivable and hence non-existent.)

Suppose there are two beings, A and B. A is different from B. Then there must be a C that separates A and B. But this C must also be different from both A and B for it to be a point of difference between them. (C has to be a being too, as a non-being is inconceivable.) This would call for a need for D and E that would differentiate between A and C and C and B respectively, and so on, till infinity (leading to the infinite regress problem). Thus, the being is a whole without parts. It is indivisible.

Parmenides’ Idea of Being

1. Being as Absolute — Whatever is, is
2. Being as Eternal — There is an absence of time for the being. It is beyond temporality. It is important to not confuse this being as being temporally eternal.
3. Being as Not Created — What is, is. It cannot be generated or created as that would invoke temporality and change. Thus, it follows that one cannot construe of the non-being.
4. Being as Indestructible — Being is eternal. If it were to be destroyed, then there would be non-being, which is inconceivable and hence impossible.
5. Being as Indivisible — If the Being were to be divided into parts, the parts would have had to be different from each other. Only one part could be being and the other would have to be not-being. But there is no not-being, and only being ‘is’.
6. Being as governed by Logos — The being is balanced by logos (reason). It operates in a structured manner. Non-being is not permitted by logos. He elevates the notion of balance to the structure of reason.

Similar to the Ionian principle of dike that was invoked by earlier philosophers, Parmenides believes that there is a necessary reason for things to be how they are. The difference is in their approach of asserting this principle. The others’ premises were dependent on the senses and empirical understanding while Parmenides’ premises are independent of senses and empirical data, making the gravity of their truth even greater. He hints that laws/principles of nature cannot be violated. This is necessary for there to be order. From this the idea of the possibility of logical forms is arrived at. He introduced the concept of a-priori as principles that are universal and independent of experience, eternal and beyond time and space. Such principles sideline any scope for the contextuality of truth. This is the basis for Plato’s Theory of Recollection, as per which knowledge is already there — its conceivable. When we are conceiving it, we are gaining knowledge. Knowledge can never be originally new. Whatever can be known or conceived must already and always be.

Doxa — Way of the False

If one is to accept the above as preached by the goddess, one loses their agency in terms of materiality. We act to change or to prevent change. Action is thus necessarily related to change, and agency is invoked to counter or encounter it. What of everyday life, then? How do we address our pragmatic concerns?

But to cancel out Parmedian thought because of the above problem would be to assume that he did not himself realize that it is a problem. He did. Parmenides believed that doxa is needed to be functional. Doxa here means the way of senses — which has been established as being false by him. But it is, in this pragmatic sense, unavoidable. The choice is between different doxa. One needs to be selective — and choose that which is at least respectful of Alethea or truth/reason (as has been elaborated upon, above). But doxa can never become the truth. (In a way, one can only choose the best amongst the worst). The least wrong doxa leads to approximation of the form of the truth. (This form/structure is the idea of ‘being’ discussed above, the content cannot be approximated as the subjects being and not-being are opposed to each other — and doxa implies accepting the not-being). Thus, one needs to adopt what is closest to the logic and ontology of Alethea. The Goddess (in the poem) attempts to provide the best possible choice through her cosmogony — and this is where Parmenidean philosophy ends. But this account of the best possible doxa is still a doxa — it is not the truth and because of this, it loses its force.

(Plato expands upon this in problem in his Theory of Forms and Aristotle expands upon this form or ‘schemata’ through his Analytics)

The strength of Parmedian work lies in the fact that his work does not rely on the authority of ‘goddess’ who preaches Alethea or truth. It relies on rationality. Because his theses are tautologies, they are self-evident and can only be denied by a denial of reason. The general principle that the authority of truth is inviolable is invoked.