Professional Documents
Culture Documents
while the Colossus is not. But analogous statements would be quite natural
in ancient Greek, and this sense of ‘be’ is certainly involved in Parmenides’
talk of Being. All that there is, all that exists, is included in Being.
However, the Greek verb ‘to be’ occurs not only in sentences such as
‘Troy is no more’ but also in sentences of many diVerent kinds, such
as ‘Helen is beautiful’, ‘Aphrodite is a goddess’, ‘Achilles is brave’, and so on
through all the diVerent modes that Aristotle was to dignify as categories.
For Parmenides, Being is not just that which exists, but that of which any
sentence containing ‘is’ is true. Equally, being is not just existing (being,
period) but being anything whatever: being hot or being cold, being earth
or being water, and so on. Thus interpreted, Being is a realm both richer
and more puzzling than the totality of existents.
Parmenides’ Ontology
Let us now look in detail at some of Parmenides’ mysterious claims,
expressed in his rugged verse, which I have tried to render in an equally
clumsy translation.
What you can call and think must Being be
For Being can, and nothing cannot, be. (DK 28 B6)
The Wrst line (literally: ‘What is for saying and for thinking must be’)
expresses the universality of Being: whatever you can call by any name,
whatever you can think of, must be. Why so? Presumably because if I utter
a name or think a thought, I must be able to answer the question ‘What is it
that you are talking about or thinking of?’ The message of the second line
(literally ‘It is for being be but nothing is not’) is that anything that can be
at all must be something or other; it cannot be just nothing.
The matter becomes clearer when Parmenides, in a later fragment,
introduces a negative notion to correspond to Being.
Never shall this prevail, that Unbeing is;
Rein in your mind from any thought like this. (DK 28 B7, 1–2)
My ‘Unbeing’ represents the negation of Parmenides’ participle (me eonta).
I use the word instead of some formula such as ‘not-being’ because the
context makes clear that Parmenides’ Greek expression, though a perfectly
200
Parmenides and Heraclitus, neighbours in Raphael’s School of Athens
METAPHYSICS
202
METAPHYSICS
runs slowly is running all the time. Similarly, for Parmenides, stuV which is
Wrst water and then air goes on be-ing all the time. Change is never from
not-being to being, or vice versa; the most there can ever be is variation of
being.
Interpreting Parmenides in this way helps us to understand how he
draws some very remarkable conclusions from the theses of the universal-
ity of Being and the inconceivability of Unbeing.
One road there is, signposted in this wise:
Being was never born and never dies.
Four-square, unmoved, no end it will allow.
It never was, nor will be; all is now,
One and continuous. How could it be born
Or whence could it be grown? Unbeing?—No—
That mayn’t be said or thought; we cannot go
So far ev’n to deny it is. What need,
Early or late, could Being from Unbeing seed?
Thus it must altogether be or not.
(DK 28 B8. 1–11)
From the principle ‘Nothing can come from nothing’ many philosophers
of diVerent persuasions have drawn the conclusion that the world must
always have existed. Other philosophers, too, have oVered as a supporting
argument that there could be no suYcient reason for a world to come into
existence at one moment rather than another, earlier or later. But Par-
menides’ claim that Being has no beginning and no end takes a much more
sweeping form. Being is not only everlasting, it is not subject to change
(‘four-square, unmoved’) or even to the passage of time (it is all now, and
has no past or future). What could diVerentiate past from present and
future? If it is no kind of being, then time is unreal; if it is some kind of
being, then it is all part of Being. Past, present, and future are all one Being.
By similar arguments Parmenides seeks to show that Being is undivided.
What could separate Being from Being? Being? In that case there is no
division, but continuous Being. Unbeing? In that case any division is unreal
(DK 28 B8. 22–5). We might expect him to argue in a parallel fashion that
Being is unlimited. What could set limits to Being? Unbeing cannot do
anything to anything; and if we imagine that Being is limited by Being,
then Being has not yet reached its limits. Some of Parmenides’ followers
argued thus (Aristotle, GC 1.8. 325a15), but this is not how Parmenides
203
METAPHYSICS
204