Parmenides'
legacy is to challenge us either to forego talk of non-being or to ensure that
all such talk is conceptually coherent. He did not think that any talk of
non-being could be coherent, and so he urges us all to abandon such
talk. If we are not persuaded that a move this radical is warranted, then we at
least owe Parmenides the posthumous honor of showing him how talk of
non-being is not confused and mistaken at its very core.
We will see
how pluralists Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus address the problem. They
agree with Parmenides that non-being cannot in any way exist (except for
Democritus' void), and agree with him that this entails that fundamental change
cannot happen (for then being would have to change into something other than
itself, namely, non-being). Where they reject Parmenides is that they think
that there is a less-than-fundamental change that does happen.
Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus think that although the primitive things
(the four elements, the seeds, and the atoms, respectively) cannot come to be
or pass away or even change at all, entities derived from the primitives (e.g.,
tables, trees, people) come to be and pass away and change their qualities and
size, et cetera. We will later see that Plato's solution is similar (the
primitive things do not change), yet different in an important way (what sorts
of things are primitive).
In order to
facilitate our discussion of a difficult topic, I want you to feed upon this
chart for a while. It contains twelve examples of declarative sentences,
categorized on four parameters: whether the sentence seems true or false,
whether the sentence is affirmative or negative, whether the subject of the
sentence exists or not, and whether the sentence seems to be existential or
predicational (a distinction I'll explain below).
|
|
Apparent Truth Value (True/False) |
Affirmative/Negative |
Existent/ |
Existential/ |
Example |
|
1. |
T |
Aff |
ExS |
Ex |
Biden
is. |
|
2. |
F |
Aff |
NExS |
Ex |
Santa
Claus is. |
|
3. |
T |
Neg |
NExS |
Ex |
Santa
Claus is not. |
|
4. |
F |
Neg |
ExS |
Ex |
Biden
is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. |
T |
Aff |
ExS |
Pr |
Biden
is Democratic. |
|
6. |
F |
Aff |
ExS |
Pr |
Biden
is Republican. |
|
7. |
T |
Neg |
ExS |
Pr |
Biden
is not Republican. |
|
8. |
F |
Neg |
ExS |
Pr |
Biden
is not Democratic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. |
T |
Aff |
NexS |
Pr |
Santa
Claus is bearded. |
|
10. |
F |
Aff |
NexS |
Pr |
Santa
Claus is underweight. |
|
11. |
T |
Neg |
NexS |
Pr |
Santa
Claus is not underweight. |
|
12. |
F |
Neg |
NexS |
Pr |
Santa
Claus is not bearded. |
A. The simplest cases
of what cannot be declared
The
Parmenidean would deny the legitimacy of all of these sentences, for all that
the Parmenidean thinks can be said (or even thought) is "Being is,"
or its equivalents, like "Reality is," "The One exists,"
"The existent is real, " etc. To assert existence of anything
else, to say that something is besides Being, is to say that
something that is not Being is. And this, to a Parmenidean mind, is to
say that non-Being has being, a proposition which I think we would all agree is
at least conceptually problematic, if not downright off-limits. So even the
simplest of the above, sentence (1), says that something that is not
identical with Being (namely, Biden) is Being (that is, exists), and
would therefore be no more sensible than saying that Biden is not Biden.
The
Parmenidean will extend this objection to claims like (5) and (6). Although not
as simple as (1), it is still the case that in asserting (5) or (6) we are
asserting something which seems to require sense to be made of (1). After all,
if we can't say that Biden is, then how can we say that Biden is something
as opposed to something else?
These points are what Parmenides is making in the first four lines of a
fragment from him:
But come now, I will tell you—and you, when you have
heard the story, bring it safely away—
which are the only ways of inquiry that are for thinking:
the one, that is and that it is not possible for it not to be,
is the path of Persuasion (for it attends upon Truth),
the other, that it is not and that it is right that it not to be,
this indeed I declare to you to be a path entirely unable to be investigated:
For neither can you know what it is (for it is not to be accomplished)
nor can you declare it.
(fragment
2, from Proclus and from Simplicius, as rendered in Curd’s A Presocratics Reader, pp. 57-58)
B. The Parmenideans against non-existent subjects
The final
four lines of this fragment point toward another counterintuitive position of
the Parmenideans: sentences (2), (3), and (9)-(12) are illegitimate (that is,
not declarable). These are sentences with a non-existent subject, and so are
attempts to say something about nothing. They are attempting to
say something about that which doesn't exist, and that which doesn't exist is nothing.
To try to say that Santa Claus is bearded is to try to take something and
describe it in some way. But what if there's no something there? What is
it that is being described? What is it that is being "declared"?
Parmenides' answer is "Nothing." And if nothing is being described,
then there's not any describing going on. We can no more talk about something
that is not (that is, that is nothing) than we can kick a ball that doesn't
exist. There's nothing there to receive the doing.
Sentence (9)
certainly seems true, but if so, then how? For if (9) is true, then the
state of affairs described by the sentence would have to obtain. Trouble is,
how could Santa be bearded if he doesn't exist? In other words, what
does the subject of (9) refer to? (This problem will sound familiar to you.) In
response, we might say, "Sure, there is something to be described,
even if it's not Santa Claus. What we're talking about when we talk about Santa
Claus is our concepts of Santa." This is the claim that (9) gets to
be true because its subject refers to "the concept of Santa" or to
"stories about Santa."
But the Parmenidean has two good objections to this attempt. First, then (9)
would be false; concepts are amazing things, but they can't grow hair.
Secondly, sentence (2) would become true and (3) would become false. If talk of
Santa is talk of the concept of Santa, then to say that Santa Claus doesn't
exist is to say that our concept of Santa Claus doesn't exist--and this
surely seems to be false. After all, how can we allow a reinterpretation of the
subject of (9) (through [12]) without consistently endorsing the
reinterpretation everywhere? How can we argue for different treatment without
being ad hoc?
C. The Parmenideans
against negative sentences
So far we
have seen how the Parmenidean rejects nine of the above dozen sentences--all
but (4), (7), and (8). The final four lines of the above fragment actually
indicate that even these last three sentences are to be rejected, though in a
way more tricky to grasp. The Parmenidean will reject as well-formed sentences
(3), (4), (7), (8), (11), and (12)--in other words, any sentence that is a
negative. (Given the preceding paragraph, this means that [3], [11], and [12]
are to be doubly rejected.) The Parmenidean reasoning is that these examples
require that the subject be-not, which seems to entail that the subject is not
doing any being. To be not is to not be; to not be is to not
be anything at all; to not be anything at all is to be nothing at
all; and to be nothing at all is to not even be a possible object
of thought and discourse. So for something to be not (whether it's "be
not, period" or "be not bearded") would require that something
be nothing at all, which just about anyone would grant is impossible.
D. Objection based on
the existential vs. the predicational "is"
One fairly
common attempt to try to escape from the oddness to which Parmenidean logic
would seem to consign us is to insist that Parmenides is running together two
very different sorts of statements: the claim is that the "is" in,
say, (4) means something very different from the "is" in (8). Yes,
they have the same truth-value as each other, along with matching in the other
parameters listed above, but, the criticism goes, they arrive at the same
truth-value in two very different ways. To be not-something (like not
Republican) isn’t the same as to not-be. To not be is to not
exist, but this isn’t so for not being this or not being that.
This
criticism notes that the use of "is" is common to (1)-(12), but
maintains that this masks a fundamental difference in two senses of
"is." The "is" in (1)-(4) can be replaced by
"exists" without any loss of meaning. (In fact, the resulting
replacement would give us a more common way of speaking.) It is noted, however,
that the "is" in (5)-(12) cannot be so replaced. This points to what
has come to be called the distinction between the existential "is"
(used in the first four examples) and the predicational "is" (used in
the fifth through twelfth examples). And this claim amounts to the criticism
that the Parmenideans get themselves into trouble only by failing to
distinguish between the existential and predicational senses of being. (In case
you’re familiar with this term, this criticism would amount to charging
Parmenides with equivocating on the word “is.”)
I repeat that
this criticism, if sound, is more general than driving a wedge between (4) and
(8). The wedge would insert itself between the first four and everything else.
So what might seem to be each of the first four and its twin (in terms of the
parameters listed in the three descriptive columns above)—pairing (1) and (5),
(2) and (6), etc.—would actually constitute two very different items,
the first being existential and the second predicational.
E. Two Parmenidean
defenses against this objection
There is
something tempting about this criticism, for it does seem a clean way to cut
through the Parmenidean logical knot. But there are at least two problems with
dismissing Parmenides on this basis. Each of these problems may or may not be
solvable, and that is where the exercise of your noggin’s own good judgment is
called for.
First, is
there a distinction between the existential use of "is" and the
predicational use? Mightn’t the existential use predicate something of
the subject, namely predicate existence, just as I predicate redness of the apple when I call the apple red?
If so, then the difference between, say, (1) and (5) isn’t one of logical kind,
but rather simply that something different is being said of Biden in the two
statements. It would then seem that we could get no more philosophical mileage
out of the "predicating simply-existence" use of is vs. the "predicating
something-other-than-simply-existence" use of is than we could get out of any other two predications. For
example, since Parmenideans need not (on these grounds) be bothered by the fact
that some propositions predicate a certain age of Biden, whereas other
propositions predicate a certain height of him, why should the Parmenideans be
especially bothered by someone pointing out to them that some statements
predicate existence of Biden, whereas others predicate a political affiliation?
Second, even
if this first attempted defense of the Parmenideans does not work, and the
Parmenideans have to give up on their objections to negative sentences, note
what the above criticism of the Parmenideans leaves untouched. Concerned as it
is with the alleged difference between the first four and all the rest, it
leaves unaddressed the Parmenidean claims made in sections (B) and (C) above.
After all, the Parmenideans object to the legitimacy of more than the negative
propositions above. There is much--just about all, in fact--about which the
Parmenideans would say, "nor may you declare it."
Send me
mail: mstaber
at smcm dot edu
Return to my handouts
page.
Go to Michael Taber's home page.
Go to SMCM's home page.