David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Classical Quarterly 10 (1-2):84- (1960)
The following suggestions for the interpretation of Parmenides and Melissus can be grouped for convenience about one problem. This is the problem whether, as Aristotle thought and as most commentators still assume, Parmenides wrote his poem in the broad tradition of Ionian and Italian cosmology. The details of Aristotle's interpretation have been challenged over and again, but those who agree with his general assumptions take comfort from some or all of the following major arguments. First, the cosmogony which formed the last part of Parmenides' poem is expressly claimed by the goddess who expounds it to have some measure of truth or reliability in its own right, and indeed the very greatest measure possible for such an attempt. Second, the earlier arguments of the goddess prepare the ground for such a cosmogony in two ways. For in the first place these arguments themselves start from assumptions derived from earlier cosmologists, and are concerned merely to work out the implications of this traditional material. And, in the second place, they end by establishing the existence of a spherical universe: the framework of the physical world can be secured by logic even if the subsequent introduction of sensible qualities or ‘powers’ into this world marks some decline in logical rigour
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Paul Thom (1986). A Lesniewskian Reading of Ancient Ontology: Parmenides to Democritus. History and Philosophy of Logic 7 (2):155-166.
Similar books and articles
G. B. Kerferd (1961). Eleatic Philosophy J. H. M. M. Loenen: Parmenides, Melissus, Gorgias. A Reinterpretation of Eleatic Philosophy. Pp. 207. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1959. Paper, Fl. 14.50. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 11 (01):26-27.
Michael Rea (2001). How to Be an Eleatic Monist. Philosophical Perspectives 15 (s15):129-151.
Kevin M. Cherry (2012). Plato, Aristotle and the Purpose of Politics. Cambridge University Press.
George Harvey (2009). Technê and the Good in Plato's Statesman and Philebus. Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (1):pp. 1-33.
Mark Colyvan (1998). Can the Eleatic Principle Be Justified? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28 (3):313 - 335.
Wallace Matson (1984). Eleatic Motions. Philosophical Inquiry 6 (3-4):184-201.
Montgomery Furth (1968). Elements of Eleatic Ontology. Journal of the History of Philosophy 6 (2):111.
R. S. B. (1960). Parmenides, Melissus, Gorgias. A Reinterpretation of Eleatic Philosophy. Review of Metaphysics 14 (1):173-174.
R. B. B. Wardy (1988). Eleatic Pluralism. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 70 (2):125-146.
Graham Oddie (1982). Armstrong on the Eleatic Principle and Abstract Entities. Philosophical Studies 41 (2):285 - 295.
Patricia Kenig Curd (1993). Eleatic Monism in Zeno and Melissus. Ancient Philosophy 13 (1):1-22.
V. Tejera (1978). Plato's Politicus, an Eleatic Sophist on Politics. Philosophy and Social Criticism 5 (1):106-125.
David Sedley (2008). Atomism's Eleatic Roots. In Patricia Curd & Daniel W. Graham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy. Oxford University Press
Scott Berman (1996). Form and Good in Plato's Eleatic Dialogues. Ancient Philosophy 16 (2):487-491.
Added to index2010-12-09
Total downloads67 ( #48,839 of 1,725,575 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #93,199 of 1,725,575 )
How can I increase my downloads?