SOME ALTERNATIVES IN INTERPRETING PARMENIDES Author(s): Alexander P.D. Mourelatos Source: The Monist, Vol. 62, No. 1, Parmenides Studies Today (JANUARY, 1979), pp. 3-14 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27902571 Accessed: 16-06-2015 14:34 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected]. Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Monist. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.83.205.78 on Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:34:30 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions SOME ALTERNATIVES IN INTERPRETING PARMENIDES In thework of interpreting Parmenides we have witnessed in the 'sixties and 'seventies, in English language scholarship, that rarest of phenomena in the study of ancient philosophy, the emergence of a consensus. Four inter pretive theses now seem quite widely shared: (a) Parmenides deliberately sup presses the subject of esti, "is," or einai, "to be," in his statement of the two "routes" in B2, his intention being to allow the subject to become gradually specified as the argument unfolds, (b) The negative route, ouk esti, "is not," or trie einai, "not to be," is banned because sentences that adhere to it fail to refer (semantically speaking) to actual entities?the latter to be understood broadly, as will shortly be stated in thesis (d).