Parmenides of elea

Similar to all the previous philosophers, Parmenides of Elea had his own view about the "natural end" or "the origin of the universe". Parmenides' "origin of the universe" is quite unique. It is no longer a physical exist that we could feel by experience or through our senses. Thales' water, Anaximander's Apeiron, Anaximenes' "air", Pythagoras' "number" and even Heraclitus' "Fire"(logos), we could experience them or "feel" personally, and they were involved in changing. Compared to the aforementioned philosophers, Parmenides' "what-is" is more abstract and more confusing. In Aphorism 8, Parmenides explained his metaphysics "what-is" to us.

According to him, "what-is" is not opposed to "what-is not", and what-is is "ungenerated and imperishable a whole of a single kind, unshaken, and complete". That is the most part I like Paemenides, for at least his "origin" is not a thing that is under a start and an end. Once he completely explained "what-is", "what-is" is the start and the end, because nothing else could form it. But where it makes me feel confused is that, he denied the common view that "what is not " opposed to "what is", for me it seems like, all the things are involved into "what-is", "what-is not" is naturally a part of "what-is".

It is not concluded in the readings, but I guess for the ethic of Parmenidies, he would agree that the principle we followed should not rely on our "sense-experience", and the principle should be same for all the societies and pass through all the generations, for "what-is" won't change with the flying time.


(To say something disappoints me in Parmenides, I thought there would not be a physical exist in his "what is ", but he described it as "the bulk of a ball well-rounded from all sides". Thus, Heraclitus is still my favorite ancient philosopher so far, as I prefer "Fire" to "ball".)