Class on “Chapters 2 and 3” of Presocratic Philosophy: A

Very Short Introduction.

The Eleatic school of philosophy
The word “Eleatic” refers to the city of Elea in southern Italy where there was a Greek
colony. The name “Eleatic” is used to refer to the school of philosophy that emerged from
this city.
The school of Elea was composed of the following philosophers:
 Parmenides (515-450) “Chapter 2”
 Zeno of Elea (490-430) “Chapter 3”
 Melissus of Samos – Not cover in this book.
We sometimes refer to these philosophers as the Eleatics. One specific trait of this school is
that, unlike the philosophers who came before them, they do not believe that there are many
things and do not believe in the transformation of these things.

Monism (from the Greek: μονός, single): monism is said of any philosophical
doctrine that reduces the totality of things to unity or to one thing. In
presocratic philosophy, many thinkers are monists.
Even though they posit the existence of multiple different things, the Milesian
thinkers like Thales, Anaximenes, and Anaximander, believe that the plurality
comes from the transformation of one archê (basic stuff of the universe, first
principles). Therefore, they are monists. Still, Parmenides will disagree with them
because he does not believe in transformation. To him, there is only one thing.
It is difficult to say if Parmenides was reacting to one of the Milesians; these
ideas may have reached him, but we cannot be sure of anything. At least, we can
say that the idea of many things undergoing transformation, the one and
multiplicity, were a common topic of discussion at that time.

What is and what is not

What does Parmenides mean when he says that we cannot talk about what is not? How does
it oppose transformation found in the Milesians?
 First, what does he mean by what is and what is not?
 Here is a thought experiment to think about what he has in mind.
 This is not from Parmenides; this is from me to illustrate the problem.
 Think of the universe.
 Does it end at some point?
 What is outside?
 Is it that the universe float in a big void where there is nothing?
 Would that make sense to say that there is nothing outside the universe?
 That would mean that, outside the universe, there is nothing, what is not.
  Then, would it make sense to say that the universe stands in what is not, stands in
nothing?
 How could “nothing” hold the universe?
 How can one point to something and refer to this as “what is not”; if you are
pointing at it, then it exists, right?
We are confronted with the following idea: to explain reality, you cannot turn to something
that does not exist to explain reality. “What is not” cannot be used as an explanation. This
makes sense.
But then, what are the logical consequences of this? Well, we cannot accept any void of any
kind – you could accept that one space is empty, does not hold anything, but you would not
say the space itself does not exist.
When discussing the many things that emerge from the transformation of one archê – like the
Milesian did –, one must turn to “void” to explain it. Because if there are many things, it
means that there is space between these things. Let’s consider the two following objects:

One might ask someone who believes that there are many things: what is between those two
things? This person cannot answer “nothing” because that would be thinking about “what is
not.” However, he may say, “something else!”

But then, one might answer that there is still room for something in between these objects.
As soon as there is space between things, there is a “what is not.” This could go on forever,
ad infinitum! – pay attention, the idea of going to infinity (ad infinitum) is a consequence of
holding that there are many things. This system does not work. At some point, space will
exist between things, and this space can only be explained by “nothing,” which is to say,
“what is not.”
The logical deduction one might draw here is that there is only one thing and that the world
is full of this thing. From there, it is easy to see why things do not move – for movement is
not allowed in a world that is completely full – could a rock be located in the same place of
another rock of the same size? One needs empty space to move around.

“One cannot refer to what is not there to be referred to, any more than one can
point at something that is not there to be pointed at. This is a fundamental
difficulty that any philosophical account of language must be equipped to account
for. […]
The reconstruction of the argument against the path ‘(it) is not’ may be
summarised thus: to take the part ‘(it) is not’ involves speaking of or thinking of
something that is not; but what can be spoken or thought of, is; hence, it is not
possible to take the path ‘(it) is not’, even in the sense of placing oneself at its
starting-point, so that the path cannot exist at all. In other words, the premiss ‘(it)
is not’ is shown to be false; it is shown to be not a possible premiss at all, since it
is not an expression of any possible thought. It is meaningless” (Hussey 85).

Change is not possible either. For to change is to go from a state of “is not” to another state
that “is”; “nothing can come from nothing,” they say. But there cannot be “is not.” Since
there are no changes, things are not born and they do not die.
Did Parmenides believe what he said?
Many people find the ideas of Parmenides very surprising. I have wondered if Parmenides
even believed that things do not change, that movement is not possible, etc. Here is what I
think.
I do not think that Parmenides really believed what he said. He may have been a monist for
real, but I do not think he believed that movement was not possible, or that people did not
die. Let me explain:
In epistemology – the study of how we know reality – there are two main ways one can
grasp what reality is.
 Observation and experience
 Reason
We call the first type of approach empiricism and the second type rationality.
Maybe all Parmenides wanted to do it to show the sometimes-complex nature of reality. His
argument, that we cannot “sprinkle” bits of “nothing” and “what is not” here and there to
explain reality stands to reason. Who can disagree with “one cannot speak about what is
not”? It may also be that Parmenides wanted to point out that things are not always as they
appear.
Whatever interpretation one reach when reading this difficult text of Parmenides, the
question remains, what kind of reality must one ascribe to something that does not exist?
Zeno and his paradoxes
Zeno is a disciple of Parmenides. He used some arguments to further support the doctrine
of Parmenides. He mainly used what we call paradoxes.

Paradox: A paradox is a persuasive argument that, at first, goes against common

sense. In Greek, it means “against the received opinion.”; (para- means against,
and -doxa means opinions). A paradox works well to make you think about
something. Philosophers use paradoxes to show the sometimes-complex nature
of reality.

Some have been quick to mention that the paradoxes of Zeno, while they do talk about the
impossibility of movement found in Parmenides, add a problem: infinity. However, the
problem of infinity, even though it does not seem to appear in the doctrine of Parmenides,
was already part of the problem brought about by those who hold that there are many
things.
If the present of multiple things implies infinity, then we may split a distance into an infinite
number of spaces. The paradoxes involving Achilles consider the problem of infinity.
Achilles will never reach the finish line, because he has to go through an infinite series of
points. It is impossible for Achilles to read the end of infinity (the finish line).
The paradox uses these premises:
1- The distance between two points can be divided to infinity.
2- One can never reach the end of infinity.
∴ Movement is impossible
Also, when one accepts the first premise, one must also accept that a finite distance holds an
infinite number of points. But how can something finite holds infinity?
What is the point of using paradoxes?
Since paradoxes show the sometimes-complex nature of reality, it is possible that Zeno was
using these paradoxes against people who held that reality was composed of multiple things.
The outcome of holding a position with multiple things is infinity of these things. The
paradoxes show what kind of consequence a reality with many things, and infinity, would
have.
Reason and logic work, even though sometimes the use of logic could lead to surprising
conclusions. The use of reason and logic, in this case, show that things may be more
complex than previously thought by the other thinkers holding that there are many things.
Work Cited
Hussey, Edward. The Presocratics, Hackett Publishing, 1972.
Osborne, Catherine. Presocratic Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press,
2004.