Giovanna asked:

I am an undergraduate student studying for the External Programme/Distance Learning BA degree in
Philosophy with the University of London, U.K. I study on my own and this entails being the student
and the teacher at the same time. Whenever I have questions or don't understand something, I
somehow must try to find the answer on my own. It's certainly more challenging this way, but
everyone needs some guidance (even Plato had his guide after all).

I have some perplexities about some of Plato's works. I am having somewhat of a problem with
Plato's Parmenides,I need someone to illuminate me about Parmenides' Eleatic philosophy. I
haven't yet decided whether he's for the Absolute or the Relative theory of things. His reasonings are
a bit mind-boggling. Help!

============

Plato's Parmenidesis his most difficult work. Proclus (410-485), probably the greatest commentator
on Plato in history, said the Parmenideswas Plato's most essential work and he expressly treats it
like a Scripture. As with all works which are fundamental to thinking, we need to recognise, at the
outset, that we are not going to be able to find a few easy (or even difficult) formula which
encapsulate it. If we think we 'understand' the Parmenides, it only means we have a theory about it,
which merely represents a fore-closure upon further thinking about it, which thinking itself cannot
allow! Even the best of such theories can never dispense with the Parmenidesitself, which in a
sense, always remains ahead of us. Although our theories would like to put it behind us and consign it
to 'history', they never shall. Proclus recognises this, but many modern academic scholars fail to do
so. To adapt the words of Jorge Luis Borges, the best explanation of the Parmenidesare the words of
the Parmenidesitself.

How to get on the way to thinking about the Parmenidesis the question, not how to comprehend it.
The fact that you know it is 'mind boggling' means you already understand more than all those
'experts' in the dialogue who no longer find it mind boggling. You are ahead of them.

My own reverential reading of the text leads me to believe that it is not about a theory of things, but a
theory of theories. Also, it is neither Absolute nor Relative. Parmenides' stance is eidetic or dialectic
— although what these things mean is itself a major area of study. Remember, the stance of the hero
is at a distance from what Plato, as the philosopher, might be trying to reveal through the dialogue as
a whole, and Parmenides' speeches in particular. Ordinary thinking as well as rational thinking is
positive-negative, subject-object thinking. Plato's thinking in this dialogue is speculative. He is thinking
about the unity of what are absolute opposites. These opposites are not particulars but enter into all
that is. The Eleatic doctrine (which Parmenides stands for) is that only being is, and that non-being is
not. Platonic dialectic is not the same as the dialectic of Elea. In either case, this dialectic is
speculative not just conceptual. This makes it more demanding for a modern reader and one cannot
really come to it cold and hope to get even a glimpse of what is going on. For Plato there is an identity
of Being and non-being. It is not just that Being is not without negation, but Plato wants to show that
non-being is always already the essential determination of Being; in other words, Being is always
otherwise than itself.By contrast, for the Eleatics, Being is always a matter 'in itself' and 'for itself'.
Plato is against a metaphysics of pure Being (monism) and against a metaphysics of co-incidence or
con-junction of opposites (coniunctio oppositorum).

What is truly 'Socratic' about this dialogue (i.e. Platonic) is that Plato has Parmenides as the
mouthpiece for theories which refute those supposedly held by him as the leader of the Eleatic
school. Plato does the same thing with the Eleatic Stranger in the Sophist. I am not sure what, but I
am sure this means something.

The Parmenidesis very difficult. Be guided by your perplexities, don't succumb to theory in place of
philosophy. Although I unfortunately don't have it at hand at the moment, I would recommend that for
further clarification than I am able to give here, you find the old (late 19th cent.) edition of Jowett's
translation of the Parmenides, the one with his long introductory essay and analysis. Normally
translators make poor commentators, but Jowett's essays and ideas about Plato are exceedingly
authoritative.

Matthew Del Nevo

www.sicetnon.com