David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Phronesis 50 (4):263 - 288 (2005)
In this paper I offer a new interpretation of Melissus' argument at DK 30 B8. In this passage Melissus uses an Eleatic argument against change to challenge an opponent who appeals to the authority of perception in order to support the view that there are a plurality of items in the world. I identify an orthodox type of approach to this passage, but argue that it cannot give a charitable interpretation of Melissus' strategy. In order to assess Melissus' overall argument we have to identify the opponent at whom it is aimed. The orthodox interpretation of the argument faces a dilemma: Melissus' argument is either a poor argument against a plausible opponent or a good argument against an implausible opponent. My interpretation turns on identifying a new target for Melissus' argument. I explain the position I call Bluff Realism (contrasting it with two other views: the Pig Headed and the Fully Engaged). These are positions concerning the dialectical relation between perception on the one hand, and arguments to counterperceptual conclusions on the other. I argue that Bluff Realism represents a serious threat from an Eleatic point of view, and is prima facie an attractive position in its own right. I then give a charitable interpretation of Melissus' argument in DK 30 B8, showing how he produces a strong and incisive argument against the Bluff Realist position I have identified. Melissus emerges as an innovative and astute philosopher
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
G. B. Kerferd (1975). A Vindication of Melissus? The Classical Review 25 (02):186-.
Jan Willem Wieland (2012). Regress Argument Reconstruction. Argumentation 26 (4):489-503.
Peter Bicknell (1982). Melissus' Way of Seeming? Phronesis 27 (1):194-201.
Peter Bicknell (1982). Melissus' Way of Seeming? Phronesis 27 (2):194 - 201.
Chris Calvert-Minor (2009). Commonsense Realism and Triangulation. Philosophia 37 (1):67-86.
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.
Patricia Kenig Curd (1993). Eleatic Monism in Zeno and Melissus. Ancient Philosophy 13 (1):1-22.
John Losee (1964). The Use of Philosophical Arguments in Quantum Physics. Philosophy of Science 31 (1):10-17.
Stephen Makin (2005). Melissus And His Opponents: The Argument of DK 30 B 8. Phronesis 50 (4):263-288.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #459,101 of 1,101,815 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #306,516 of 1,101,815 )
How can I increase my downloads?