DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Continental Philosophy Society
HTML https://continentalphilsociety.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Presocratics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 86--------------------------------------------------
Fragment 3 - Parmenides
By: xavierhn Date: December 30, 2017, 11:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How can we interpret this fragment thoughtfully enough to be
handed over into what Parmenides word says? A great challenge.
The fragment in Greek stands as:
τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ
νοεῖν ἐστίν
τε καὶ εἶναι
There are three key words here. We are forced to give unthought
interpretations of each word as we are yet to begin to
understand, so we must be mindful that we begin to think about
only when we have the right path secured. For example, do we
even understand the Greek meaning of τὸ
αὐτὸ - the same? To begin we must
transport 'the same' back to what belongs in it, and we do this
by carefully considering as many Greek examples as we can, from
Aristotle and Plato, poets and so on.
Aristotle in Book V of the Afterthoughts from physis circles
around a fundamental trait of the same:
ταυτότης
ἑνότης τίς
ἐστιν ἢ
πλειόνων
τοῦ εἶναι ἢ
ὅταν χρῆται
ὡς πλείοσιν,
οἷον ὅταν
λέγῃ αὐτὸ
αὑτῷ
ταὐτόν: ὡς
δυσὶ γὰρ
χρῆται
αὐτῷ.
The same (ταυτότης) is a
unity ... when a thing is the same with itself
(αὐτὸ αὑτῷ
ταὐτόν). When a thing, whatever
it may be, is given to itself as itself, it is considered
τὸ αὐτὸ. Thus the same is a
self-sameness, meaning something that has its essence belongs to
itself, which is what we usually cover in the word 'unity'.
τὸ αὐτὸ - the same,
self-sameness, belonging-together
νοεῖν - perceiving, glancing,
observing
εἶναι - to be, Being
The first thing to note, following Heidegger's Lecture "Identity
and Difference" is that τὸ αὐτὸ
- the same - has the priority in this fragment, i.e., the
fragment is about the same and only from there says something
about νοεῖν and
εἶναι. The other way around, that
thinks νοεῖν and
εἶναι together as the same, is what is
most properly called metaphysics. An example of this kind of
thinking is demonstrated most beautifully (in all its grand
simplicity) in Leibniz's text that has been entitled by
translators as "Monadology".
How is the self-same understood? Leibniz names the 'monad' as
the self-sameness of the same, a unity of perception and
activity, he states:
"The passing state that incorporates and represents a multitude
within a unity—i.e. within the simple substance— is nothing but
what we call perception."
This means that the belonging together of the same is understood
on the basis of a determinate being "perception" and its
organising principle of sufficient reason. That is to say, a
metaphysical understanding is present here because unity is
taken as an underlying being.
If we return now to Parmenides having superficially pointed out
a way that a unity is understood now in terms of its unifying
character but in terms of another thing as Leibniz does, it is
so we do no misunderstand so quickly.
Parmenides claim speaks in a different way than Leibniz in that,
the belonging together is taken itself as the point of
departure. Anything that does not recognise this will be
thinking along lines foreign to Parmenides. The same
τὸ αὐτὸ is, and only on this
basis, do we have grounds to speak of a relationship of
νοεῖν and
εἶναι because we have understood what
it is to belong.
Thus our "first" and very provisional interpretation of the
fragment will now read:
There is a belonging that is entrusted in the togetherness of
perceiving and Being.
Now, we can hopefully, begin to ask more decisive questions
about the text. The work begins!
*****************************************************