Image source - Philosophyofmovementblog.com
Introduction to Philosophical Terminology
Ontology is a branch of philosophy that studies and answers questions regarding existence, reality, being and becoming. Ontology differs from metaphysics which is the study of the nature of reality and the way that reality is. Ontology reveals what is real and unreal but metaphysics assumes a certain level of existence.While both branches deal with existence of entities, ontology seeks to unfold what entities exist and metaphysics seeks to explain what those entities are. Often ontology is seen as a sub-branch of metaphysics and ontological conclusions are also metaphysical conclusions.
Furthermore, ontological approaches can be of three kinds: Monist, Dualist and Pluralist. Monism is a metaphysical and theological view that all is one. There are no fundamental divisions and everything around us is one united substance. It is contrasted with Dualism, which upholds the idea that ultimately there are two kinds of substance, and from Pluralism, which holds that ultimately there are multiple kinds of substance. In this article, the focus shall specifically be on monism and dualism to uncover the true nature of Parmenides’s philosophy.
Another philosophical branch that shall be dealt with in this article is that of Cosmology. Cosmology is the study of the universe through theories and observations. It seeks to understand its beginning, evolution, structure and so on. It deals with the physical conditions in context with human existence.
Parmenides is seen as the apostle of monism and is famous for his strict views on reality being one united substance and change being impossible. He views sense perception as deceptive and values reason over the same. Concepts of future and past are inadmissible as what is, is and can never come into being or never not be. In light of such stringent views of the monistic nature of reality, one is bound to question why Parmenides would accept the duality in Cosmology.
This article focuses on the ontological and cosmological views of the philosopher Parmenides and seeks to draw some consistency in the two approaches. Starting with his ontological stance, moving to his cosmological stance and then to his views on Non-Being, the article highlights certain inconsistencies in his consideration as a strict monist. The focus and aim is to inquire into these inconsistencies and try to justify or validate them.
Ontological Monism as presented by Parmenides
Image source - nojomy.com
Parmenides, the founder of ontology, is considered as a strict monist due to his firm belief that reality is and must be a unity in the strictest sense. He denies the existence of change, plurality and movement of any sort. He argues that once something is said to be (something is), one cannot say that it was or it will be. He rejects the origin or dissolution of any form, in time, and also rejects the scope of any alterations or motion whatsoever. He further goes on to argue that the world of our ‘ordinary experiences’, i.e. the world as we perceive it, is non-existent and our senses are deceptive. .
He insists on the point that whatever is, is, and cannot ever not be. This in turn makes him highly critical of the commonsensical understanding of humans who rely on their senses in believing that all things are created/ generated and also undergo various types of changes. Parmenides directs us to prefer reason over sensory evidence and thus proposes that reality must also be judged by reason instead of trusting our senses.
According to the reason-driven approach of Parmenides, he lays down certain attributes that “whatever is” must possess. “Whatever is” must be imperishable, un-generated, indivisible, continuous, motionless and unchanging. In light of this, he views the past and future as meaningless. He explains that all that can be talked or thought about exists and that motion and change are inadmissible and impossible conceptions.
Reality as seen by Parmenides is entirely different from the world in which we suppose ourselves to be living in. He describes the sense-based understanding of the world to be nothing but a “deceitful show”.
When one thinks, they think of ‘something’; when they use a name, it must be the name of ‘something’. Thus, both language and thought require items outside itself. Since one can think or speak of an object at one time and another, whatever can be thought of or talked about must exist at all times. As a result, change is impossible because change occurs when things are coming into being or are ceasing to be, which cannot be the case.
According to him, empty space = nothing = non being
But non-being, according to him, cannot exist.
Therefore “empty space” cannot exist. And thus movement which requires empty space is also not possible. Something cannot come from nothing and therefore ‘coming to be’ is impossible which makes birth impossible. Similarly, we cannot ‘go to’ nothing therefore death is also impossible.
Parmenides’ views on Cosmology
There are two unique and slightly contradictory views that Parmenides offers about the cosmos and cosmology. One where he rejects its existence all together and another where he acknowledges the duality of light and night in cosmology.
The first view where he rejects the existence of cosmology. He describes it as “the beliefs of mortals”, that fails to have any genuine conviction. He also goes on to highlight how humans have deviated from the truth and have ended up picking out two forms, light and night, that serve as the basis for an account of the cosmos. While Parmenides fails to extend his strict monism to his approach towards cosmology, he does uphold a dualistic cosmological approach which continues to stay in sync with his ontological monism.
Image source - wallpaper flare
Parmenides’ cosmology is seen as “no more than a dialectical device”. According to him his theory around cosmology seemed to be the most appropriate and plausible out of all others. While humans were convinced that there exist at least 2 irreducibly different things that constantly interact with one another, Parmenides goes on to reject this view by stating that this entire idea is based on the presupposition of change and plurality but these two are impossible according to him.
There is a difference between the ordinary understanding of Light and Night as the basis of cosmology and the understanding presented by Parmenides. The former upholds the belief that the two are completely and irreversibly separate. According to them, light and night are mutually exclusive and can never coexist. In Parmenides’ opinion on the nature and relation between Light and Night, we observe that what is needed is the unity of the two. According to him, cosmology is the mixture of both forms as intertwined combined entities that grow “together”. The unity amongst the two forms is also consistent with his views on the truth of Being. Light and Night are equals and such an equality is unlikely to exist if they were segregated.
The human mistake what is present in light to be existent and knowable (Being) and whatever is in the dark and is invisible, eluding sight and knowledge, to be not-being. But that is not the case. Being and Non-Being are not synonymous to Light and Night respectively. Humans thus commit the fallacy of following their senses where they accept the truth as it “appears” to be.
An inconsistency arises when we take a deeper look at the ontological monism presented by Parmenides, an absolute and strict application of which would imply that cosmology does not exist. When he himself accounts for cosmology briefly in his writing, he also upholds the opinion that cosmology is deceptive and unreliable.
Rejection of Not-Being
Being and Not-being are opposites of one another. Not-being according to him meant absolute nothingness and the complete negation of Being. Thus “Not-Being” can never be. He argued that one cannot know Not-Being or ever talk about it which reiterates the point that whatever can be thought or talked about, exists. Therefore, Being exists and Not-Being does not, and never can. We cannot think or say “Not-Being”.
His rejection of Non-Being can be understood through an example. If one were to say “Unicorns don’t exist” Parmenides would go ahead and say that either there are unicorns, which makes the original statement a lie or there are no unicorns, which means the word unicorn and your thought is about nothing. But then again, if one can think of it, it exists. Now, one may argue that when they use the word “Unicorn” they’re referring to the idea of a unicorn that they have in their mind. But again, Parmenides would reject this by accusing one of changing the subject, because now the word means an idea instead of a physical object. Therefore, he upholds the opinion that non-being does not exist.
Enquiry into whether Parmenides was a strict monist
While this may sound paradoxical, Parmenides, the deemed apostle of monism wrote a philosophical poem full of dual structures. Acknowledging the pair of light and night fulfills a dualist strategy. Another interpretation that we can make, is that the contrast and incompatibility of light and night shown by its commonsensical understanding, reflects the incompatibility between the world as we sense it and the world as it truly is. Human perception of the world continues to stay deceitful so long as they associate Night with Non-Being.
Parmenides’ opinion is that light and night having overcome their hostility and antagonistic incompatibility, now intermingle, co-exist and grow together. There are instances of dualism reflected in his poetic philosophical expression such as the cosmological dualism of Light and Night, the deceitful dualism that separates Light from Night and the appropriate dualism that upholds the mixture of Light and Night.
To Parmenides, the truth is not limited to affirming the Being but also the rejection of Non-Being. He portrays Non-Being as the greatest risk of ontological deviation and views it as the start of “ontological nihilism”, a radical-sounding thesis that there is nothing at all.
Reality is absolute. It remains unchanged, unaltered and unified. There is no scope for any plurality or movement to exist. Whatever is, is, and cannot ever not be, thus birth and death are impossible phenomena. The duality of cosmology threatens the impossibility of plurality and the fact that it has been acknowledged and even elaborated upon by him compels us to view him as not being a strict monist.
Conclusion:
A thorough study of the work of Parmenides reveals that his philosophical standpoint was indeed unconventional. His theory, findings and opinions about reality, the universe and cosmology were certainly revolutionary. From composing a poem full of enigmatic philosophical explanations to finding a balance between strict monism and dualism, the philosopher has offered explanations for several phenomena that continue to be relevant.
When Parmenides’ strict monist arguments are applied, there is no scope for cosmology to exist, but since he offers insights about cosmology and its structure it is fair to say that Parmenides was not a strict monist. The approaches used in the two parts of his poem “On Nature” appear inconsistent with one another as one is explicitly monist and another is implicitly dualist. Calling Parmenides’ composition a blindly monist philosophical expression would be false.
In conclusion, the apostle of monism Parmenides, ironically, gave us ontological and cosmological views with a monist and dualist approach respectively. The dualism in his cosmological expression makes it more than clear that calling him a strict monist throughout would be untrue.
By Shreya Mahajan
Shreya Mahajan is a second-year student of BA (H) Philosophy at Hindu College, University of Delhi.
Contact: 9811239659
Comments