Parmenides: Can Existence Emerge from Non-Existence?
History of Philosophy 4
Parmenides, a philosopher of the 5th century BC, lived in the city of Elea, located in present-day Italy. Despite the passage of time, around 150 fragments of his work have managed to survive. Among his notable works is a poem titled “On Nature”. Through the verses of this poem, we endeavor to grasp the essence of his teachings.
What distinguishes Parmenides from his contemporaries is his unique approach. While many philosophers of his time relied on sensory experiences and empirical data to form their theories about the natural world, Parmenides chose a different path. He sought to comprehend existence through pure rationality, transcending the limitations of the sensory realm. As a result, scholars like Aster argue that Parmenides stands as the inaugural logician in the annals of history.
According to Parmenides, three assertions can be made regarding the inquiry into existence:
- Existence is; it exists.
- Existence is not; it doesn’t exist.
- Existence both is and is not.
We are presented with three possibilities: existence will be, it will not be, or it will simultaneously be and not be. Our options are limited in this regard.
The statement “Existence is, it exists” is inherently tautological. It asserts that existence must exist, leaving no room for doubt. It’s crucial to bear this in mind. Conversely, the propositions “Existence is not” and “Existence both is and is not” present contradictory claims. As a result, we can eliminate options 2 and 3 due to the flawed principle of non-contradiction.
Nothing is not
In contemplating the intriguing concept of existence, we encounter another thought-provoking notion: the absence of nothingness. If nothingness were a reality, it would already exist, contradicting its own definition. Thus, nothingness does not exist; it transcends the realm of possibility. Since nothingness does not exist, no existence can emerge from it. Consider this as a linguistic exercise, akin to examining the logical coherence between the words “existence” and “nothingness.”
Existence is eternal and everlasting
Parmenides argues that if existence exists and it is not absence, then it must have existed from the very beginning, because existence cannot arise from absence. If something exists, it must eternally and always exist. Therefore, it must demonstrate unity and continuity. For Parmenides, existence is not temporal. Hence, if existence is eternal and not temporal, seeking a beginning for it is illogical. You may notice where this line of thought leads. It’s closely related to the concept of God in monotheistic religions being eternal and everlasting.
Existence is unchangeable.
Existence, according to Parmenides, is not temporal. If existence is eternal and everlasting, then the concept of change and transformation becomes problematic. For something to change implies it turns into what it is not. If “A” turns into what it is not, then “A” would have to possess both its own characteristics and the characteristics of what it is not. In other words, it would have to both maintain itself at one point and lose itself to become something else. This appears logically contradictory to Parmenides. To explain why this is logically incorrect and why I disagree with it, it is necessary to mention Aristotelian logic. Aristotle would argue that Parmenides’ logical reasoning is quite flawed and that Parmenides misunderstood the principles of identity and non-contradiction.
Existence is One.
“There is no nothingness.” Now, one might initially respond, “Well, of course, there’s no nothingness.” However, Parmenides’ conception of nothingness equates to emptiness. If we interpret emptiness to mean the same as nothingness in Parmenides’ philosophy, then the absence of nothingness also implies the absence of emptiness. If there is no emptiness in existence, then how can it be?
According to Parmenides, all existing things must coexist within a unified whole because there is no void. Therefore, existence, for Parmenides, manifests as an inseparable sphere where everything forms a unified whole. The analogy of a sphere is logical and understandable, illustrating a unified existence where all elements are interconnected.
However, there’s a peculiar aspect to consider. When discussing Parmenides’ belief in the eternal and everlasting nature of existence, one might draw parallels to the concept of God in monotheistic religions. Indeed, Islamic thinkers such as Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi were influenced by Parmenides’ ideas. Nevertheless, Parmenides diverges from the concept of God in monotheistic religions in one crucial aspect: he asserts that existence is finite.
Existence is finite.
We typically perceive eternal and infinite perfection as boundless. However, for Parmenides, infinity signifies a deficiency because it implies the absence of an end. Consequently, since infinity lacks an end, it is considered incomplete. Interestingly, Aristotle shares Parmenides’ perspective on this matter. However, while perfection suggests completion, and completion implies an end, Parmenides’ understanding of existence contrasts with the conception of God in monotheistic religions.
In ancient Greek philosophy, a spiritual understanding didn’t emerge until Plato’s time. Parmenides, on the other hand, discusses a concept of material unity. Indeed, there are debates surrounding whether Parmenides was referring to something material or immaterial. Examining his statements closely, we find references to finitude, indivisibility, superficiality, and the equidistance of all surfaces from the center. These notions align more with material concepts. If Parmenides had been discussing a non-material spiritual entity, he likely wouldn’t have emphasized its indivisibility or the equal distance of its surfaces from the center. Therefore, I don’t consider this to be a highly debatable issue. His conception of existence leans towards the material realm.
In conclusion, according to Parmenides’ philosophy, existence must always persist because it embodies existence itself. The very notion and essence of existence necessitate perpetual presence. Therefore, existence did not emerge from non-being, nor can it vanish again. There is no room for change because existence has always endured and will continue to do so. This starkly distinguishes Parmenides from Heraclitus. Heraclitus and Parmenides epitomize two profoundly distinct epochs in the history of philosophy.
