DOCSLIB.ORG

Opposites and Explanations in Heraclitus OPPOSITES and EXPLANATIONS in HERACLITUS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opposites and Explanations in Heraclitus OPPOSITES and EXPLANATIONS in HERACLITUS Opposites and Explanations in Heraclitus OPPOSITES AND EXPLANATIONS IN HERACLITUS By RICHARD NEELS, B.A., M.A. Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy McMaster University © Copyright By Richard Neels, October 2018 PhD Thesis - R. Neels; McMaster University - Philosophy McMaster University DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (2018) Hamilton, Ontario (Philosophy) TITLE: Opposites and Explanations in Heraclitus AUTHOR: Richard Neels, B.A (Brock University), M.A. (Brock University). SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Dr. Mark Johnstone (Supervisor), Dr. David Hitchcock and Dr. Howard Jones NUMBER OF PAGES: viii, 214. ii! PhD Thesis - R. Neels; McMaster University - Philosophy LAY ABSTRACT: In this dissertation I offer a new interpretation of an ancient Greek philosopher named Heraclitus who stands at the beginning of the timeline of Western philosophy (around 500BC). It has often been thought that Heraclitus had something interesting to say about opposites (e.g. hot and cold, up and down). Most scholars think that Heraclitus intended to say that opposites are connected; that is, hot is connected to cold since we cannot think of hot without its opposite, cold. I argue in this dissertation that this interpretation and other, alternative interpretations, fail to make good sense of what Heraclitus said about opposites. Rather, I argue that Heraclitus was treating opposites (e.g. hot and cold, up and down) as philosophical problems that need to be explained in order to be solved. !iii PhD Thesis - R. Neels; McMaster University - Philosophy ABSTRACT: My dissertation advances a solution to what I have called the problem of opposites in Heraclitus. The problem is this: Heraclitus often juxtaposes pairs of opposites, but the opposites he cites seem to be of many different kinds. How are we to explain this feature of the fragments? The default method of solution for interpreters has been to find a single thesis under which to subsume all the divergent examples of opposites. Some such theses are as follows: opposites are identical (Aristotle, Barnes), opposites are essentially connected (Kirk), opposites are transformationally equivalent (Graham), identical things can have opposite significances in different situations (Osborne). The main problem all these solutions face is that each is only able to make sense of some of the examples of opposition in Heraclitus, while ignoring or downplaying the significance of others. In order to solve this problem, I offer an interpretation on which Heraclitus was advancing multiple opposites theses, each of which contains interesting, philosophical content. The theses are as follows: The Transformation Thesis: the world contains opposing stuffs which transform into one another in such a way that they are transformationally equivalent, and therefore unified. The Dependence Thesis: objects are ontologically dependent for their existence (i.e. that they exist) and their identity (i.e. their ‘nature’ or φύσις) on opposing, yet essential properties which are necessarily inherent in them. The Value Thesis: it is possible for one and the same object to have opposing values (i.e. to be both objectively good and objectively bad). But why would Heraclitus promote multiple opposites theses? On my interpretation Heraclitus was responding to his Ionian predecessors who treated opposites as explanatory principles. Heraclitus seems to be saying that opposites are not explanatory principles since opposites themselves need to be explained. Hence the opposites are explananda, for Heraclitus, and the three theses are his explanantia. !iv PhD Thesis - R. Neels; McMaster University - Philosophy ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: There are many people without whom this dissertation would not be what it is. Most of all I would like to thank my supervisor, Mark Johnstone, whose careful criticisms and expert suggestions heavily impacted the quality of this dissertation. Without his attentional to detail and tireless dedication to the success of my project this dissertation would not exist. I would also like to thank the other members of my supervisory committee, David Hitchcock, who provided much needed, detailed and salient comments on each of my chapters, and Howard Jones, who cautioned me against anachronism and who encouraged me to examine the historical context in which Heraclitus was writing. Thanks to Patricia Curd who offered to serve as external examiner and who offered her concerns in a productive and gracious manor. I would also like to thank Ric Arthur, who briefly sat on my supervisory committee, as well as the rest of the faculty members of the Philosophy Department at McMaster who participated in the May meetings and Qualifying Examination. I would also like to thank some of my PhD colleagues in the Philosophy Department at McMaster who discussed my project with me: Paul O’Hagan, Brad Shubert, Jo Cenaiko, and Chandra Kavanagh. Thanks to all those who I’ve met at conferences and who provided feedback on my presentations: Dan Graham, Tom Davies, Luke Parker, Josh Gulley, André Laks, Keith Begley, Andy Gregory, Merrick Anderson, Martim Silva, Daniel Vazquez, Enrique Hülz-Piccone, and Leon Wash. I would also like to thank Anna Marmodoro who encouraged me to work harder. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my wife, Tonia, who has been with me since the beginning of my philosophical education, who has selflessly dedicated herself to my success in academia and who always encouraged me to keep on. I could not have finished without her. !v PhD Thesis - R. Neels; McMaster University - Philosophy Table of Contents Introduction …………………………………………………………………….. 1 i. Preface ……………………………………………………………….. 1 ii. The Problem of Opposites …………………………………………… 5 iii. The Solution………………………………………………………… 14 iv. Overview………………….………………………………………… 16 Chapter 1: Transformation of Opposites ………………………………………. 20 i. Introduction …………………………………………………………. 20 ii. Transformation ……………………………………………………… 22 iii. Elemental Transformation ………………………………………….. 26 iv. The Scope of Transformation ……………………………………….. 33 v. Transformation and Opposition ……………………………………… 45 vi. One Thesis Among Several …………………………………………. 50 vii. Conclusion ………………………………………………………….. 54 Chapter 2: Dependence on Opposites ………………………………………….. 55 i. Introduction …………………………………………………………… 55 ii. "#$%& ………………………………………………………………… 55 iii. "#$%& and Opposites ………………………………………………… 66 iv. Objects and Change …………………………………………………. 76 v. Ontological Dependence …………………………………………….. 87 vi. Conclusion ………………………………………………………….. 91 Chapter 3: God and the Opposites ……………………………………………… 93 i. Introduction ………………………………………………………….. 93 ii. The Source of Order …………………………………………………. 95 iii. All Things are One ………………………………………………….. 104 iv. God and All Things ………………………………………………….. 108 v. God and the Intelligibility of the Cosmos ……………………………. 114 vi. Conclusion …………………………………………………………… 118 Chapter 4: Opposing Values …………………………………………………….. 120 i. Introduction …………………………………………………………… 120 ii. Preliminary Remarks About Goodness ………………………………. 122 iii. Goodness For ………………………………………………………… 125 iv. Goodness Simpliciter ………………………………………………… 138 v. Human Understanding ………………………………………………… 146 vi. Wisdom as Good for and Good Simpliciter ………………………….. 156 vii. Conclusion …………………………………………………………… 157 !vi PhD Thesis - R. Neels; McMaster University - Philosophy Chapter 5: Opposites and Explanation ………………………………………….. 159 i. Introduction …………………………………………………………… 159 ii. The Argument Thus Far ……………………………………………… 162 iii. The Pre-philosophical Use of Opposites ……………………………. 163 iv. Opposites and Explanation in Anaximander and Anaximenes ………. 169 v. Heraclitus’ Use of Opposites ………………………………………… 181 vi. Heraclitus on Explanation …………………………………………… 186 vii. Conclusion ………………………………………………………….. 201 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 203 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………. 209 vii! PhD Thesis - R. Neels; McMaster University - Philosophy DECLARATION OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: A variant of Chapter 1 has been published as “Elements and Opposites in Heraclitus” in Apeiron 51.4 (2018), pp. 427–452. A variant of Chapter 2 has been published as “Phusis, Opposites and Ontological Dependence in Heraclitus,” in History of Philosophy Quarterly 35.3 (2018), pp. 199-217. I have also submitted a version of Chapter 3 as “Heraclitus’ Theology” for publication in Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie. This information is accurate as of November 26, 2018. !viii PhD Thesis - R. Neels; McMaster University - Philosophy !ix PhD Thesis - R. Neels; McMaster University - Philosophy Introduction I. Preface To my knowledge, no one has yet engaged in a systematic study solely dedicated to the matter of opposition in Heraclitus. This is quite surprising for several reasons. The first reason is that it is evident from the most cursory reading of the extant fragments that Heraclitus is very interested in opposites. Consider, for example, the fact that there are around 33 pairs of opposites presented in the 130 or so extant fragments of Heraclitus.1 The second reason is that Heraclitus was notorious in the ancient tradition for having claimed that opposites are identical.2 While this extreme view has, in my opinion, been disproven as an Aristotelian misinterpretation of what we know Heraclitus to have said, the issue of what Heraclitus really said about opposites has remained a central problem for commentators up to the present day. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that this is one of the most discussed areas of Heraclitus’
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Special Issue on the Concepts of Contradiction and Unity of Opposites
    World Journal of Education and Humanities ISSN 2687-6760 (Print) ISSN 2687-6779 (Online) Vol. 2 No. 2, 2020 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/wjeh Special Issue On the Concepts of Contradiction and Unity of Opposites Prof. Zhiyong Dong1* 1 Northwest University, P. R. China * Prof. Zhiyong Dong, Northwest University, P. R. China Received: October 10 18, 2019 Accepted: October 22, 2019 Online Published: October 30, 2019 doi:10.22158/wjeh.v2n2p182 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/wjeh.v2n2p182 1. Contradiction In Chinese language, the concept of contradiction first refers to the phenomena that people make the two things, which could not be the true things at the same time, as the true things at the same time, that is, to make two opposite and conflict opinions as the correct opinions at the same time. For example, there is a story in ancient China. It is said that a person is selling weapons on the street. He says that his spears could thorn through any thing at one time. Then he says that his shields can keep out any thing at another time. An onlooker asks him what would happen if he use your spear to thrown your shield. Then the person could not answer. (Note 1) This kind of phenomena are called contradiction in formal logic in Chinese language. From this example we can see that it is quite easy to make the phenomena of contradiction in the sense of formal logic, when people make the results of different processes of thinkings as the phenomena and matters to begin a new process of thinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Methods
    3 History and Dialectic Metaphysics A 3, 983a24-4b8 Rachel Barney In Metaphysics A 3, Aristotle undertakes to confirm his system of the four causes as a framework for inquiry into first principles, the knowledge of which will constitute wisdom. His strategy will be to survey his philosophical predecessors, in order to establish that none has supplied a cause which cannot be subsumed under his own canonical four. Thus A 3 inaugurates a project not completed until the end of A 6—or, taken more inclusively, A 10, since A 7 summarizes its results, chapters 8 and 9 develop criticisms of some of the views discussed, and chapter 10 reads as a summation of the whole.1 (Much of Metaphysics α also reads, appropriately enough, like a series of reflections on this project: I will note its relevance on occasion below.) Our concern here is with the opening phase of this project. Here Aris- totle discusses the steps taken by the earliest philosophers and their successors towards determining the material cause, which led in turn to recognizing its inadequacy as sole first principle [archê]. I divide the text of A 3, 983a24-4b8 into five moves: (1) the introduction of the project (983a24-3b6); (2) the account of the reasoning of the first philosophers (983b6-20); (3) a discussion of Thales, with an excursus on his putative predecessors among the poets (983b20-4a5); (4) * I would like to thank all the participants in the Symposium Aristotelicum meeting for discussion of this paper, as well as Victor Caston, Nathan Gilbert, Phillip Horky, Brad Inwood, Stephen Menn, and Robin Smith for their comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, Son of Prixiades…
    In the deserts of the heart Let the healing fountain start, In the prison of his days Teach the free man how to praise FREE W.H. Auden POETRY Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander Free Poetry publishes essays and poetry by today’s leading poets. These chapbooks are available free of Vol. 15 No. 5 April 2020 charge and without copyright. The editor encourages the reproduction of this chapbook and its free distribution, ad infinitum. For further information please contact the editor at: [email protected] Anaximander (trans. by) Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, son of Prixiades… Anaximander, friend of Thales, and fellow citizen… Anaximander of Miletus, son of Priaxides, whose mind Thales birthed, his student and his successor… Diodorus of Ephesus, writing about Anaximander, says that he affected a tragic pomp (like a goat-skin swollen with wine) and donned clothes to look like holy man. 1 Eratosthenes says, and Hecataeus of Miletus agrees, that Homer and Anaximander were the first two to publish books on Geography. …among the Greeks of whom we know, he was the first to bring forth, from hard toil, a book on the nature of Nature. Like a child left waiting in a field, he wrote down a summary of his principle thoughts, which somehow Apollodorus of Athens happened to find. 2 He wrote , , ​On Nature​ ​The Wandering Earth​ ​Of​ ​the Constant Sources (in sequential order) , and one other book. ​ ​ Stars, Spheres​ 1. Diogenes Laertius 26. Aëtius 2. Strabo 27. Aëtius 3. Theophrastus 28. Aëtius 4. Diogenes Laertius 29. Aëtius 5. Strabo 30. Eudemus 6.
    [Show full text]
  • HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED Why Life Comes in Opposites?
    2 H AVE YOU EVER WONDERED why life comesin opposites?Why everything you value is one of a pair of opposites? Why all deci- sions are between opposites? Why all desires are based on opposites? Notice that all spatial and directional dimensions are opposites: up vs. down, inside vs. outside, high vs. low, long vs. short, North vs. South, big vs. small, here vs. there, top vs. bottom, left vs. right. And notice that all things we consider serious and important are one pole of a pair of opposites: good vs. evil, life vs. death, pleasure vs. pain, God vs. Satan, freedom vs. bondage. So also, our social and esthetic values are always put in terms of op- posites: successvs. failure, beautiful vs. ugly, strong vs. weak, intelligent vs. stupid. Even our highest abstractions rest on opposites. Logic, for instance, is concerned with the true vs. the false; epistemology, with appearance vs. reality; ontology, with being vs. non-being. Our world seemsto be a massive collection of opposites. This fact is so commonplace as to hardly need mentioning, but the more one ponders it the more it is strikingly peculiar. For nature, it seems, knows nothing of this world of opposites in which people live. Nature doesn't grow true frogs and false frogs, nor moral trees and immoral trees, nor right oceans and wrong oceans. There is no trace in nature of ethical mountains and unethical mountains. Nor are there even such things as beautiful speciesand ugly species-at least not to Nature, for it is pleased to produce all kinds.
    [Show full text]
  • Stony Brook University
    SSStttooonnnyyy BBBrrrooooookkk UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy The official electronic file of this thesis or dissertation is maintained by the University Libraries on behalf of The Graduate School at Stony Brook University. ©©© AAAllllll RRRiiiggghhhtttsss RRReeessseeerrrvvveeeddd bbbyyy AAAuuuttthhhooorrr... Heraclitus and the Work of Awakening A Dissertation Presented by Nicolas Elias Leon Ruiz to The Graduate School in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Stony Brook University August 2007 Copyright by Nicolas Elias Leon Ruiz August 2007 Stony Brook University The Graduate School Nicolas Elias Leon Ruiz We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this dissertation. Dr. Peter Manchester – Dissertation Advisor Associate Professor of Philosophy Dr. David Allison – Chairperson of Defense Professor of Philosophy Dr. Eduardo Mendieta Associate Professor of Philosophy Dr. Gregory Shaw Professor of Religious Studies Stonehill College This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School Lawrence Martin Dean of the Graduate School ii Abstract of the Dissertation Heraclitus and the Work of Awakening by Nicolas Elias Leon Ruiz Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Stony Brook University 2007 Heraclitus is regarded as one of the foundational figures of western philosophy. As such, he is typically read as some species of rational thinker: empiricist, materialist, metaphysician, dialectician, phenomenologist, etc. This dissertation argues that all of these views of Heraclitus and his work are based upon profoundly mistaken assumptions. Instead, Heraclitus is shown to be a thoroughly and consistently mystical writer whose work is organized around the recurring theme of awakening. He is thus much more akin to figures such as Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Empedocles than to Aristotle or Hegel.
    [Show full text]
  • MONEY and the EARLY GREEK MIND: Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy
    This page intentionally left blank MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND How were the Greeks of the sixth century bc able to invent philosophy and tragedy? In this book Richard Seaford argues that a large part of the answer can be found in another momentous development, the invention and rapid spread of coinage, which produced the first ever thoroughly monetised society. By transforming social relations, monetisation contributed to the ideas of the universe as an impersonal system (presocratic philosophy) and of the individual alienated from his own kin and from the gods (in tragedy). Seaford argues that an important precondition for this monetisation was the Greek practice of animal sacrifice, as represented in Homeric epic, which describes a premonetary world on the point of producing money. This book combines social history, economic anthropology, numismatics and the close reading of literary, inscriptional, and philosophical texts. Questioning the origins and shaping force of Greek philosophy, this is a major book with wide appeal. richard seaford is Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Exeter. He is the author of commentaries on Euripides’ Cyclops (1984) and Bacchae (1996) and of Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State (1994). MONEY AND THE EARLY GREEK MIND Homer, Philosophy, Tragedy RICHARD SEAFORD cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832281 © Richard Seaford 2004 This publication is in copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Days Without End —Mortality and Immortality of Life Cycle— Kumi Ohno
    （83） Days Without End —Mortality and Immortality of Life Cycle— Kumi Ohno Introduction Eugene O’Neill’s Days Without End (herein referred to as “Days” ) was premiered on December 27th, 1933 at Plymouth Theatre in Boston. The play consists of four acts and six scenes. The author tried to excavate the “crisis awareness” against an intrinsic nature of mankind through this play. In Dynamo which was written in 1929, O’Neill introduced four gods: “Puritan god”, “electricity god”, “Dynamo” and “the real god representing the eternal life”. In the story, however, Ruben, the main character, who seeks the salvation from these gods, is unable to find the true answer and commits suicide. In Days, the main character barely but successfully finds out the religious significance of the purpose of life and continues to have hope and the will to live, which is quite different from other O’Neill’s plays. This play was written in 1930s during the great economic depres sion and the anxiety of the people described in Dynamo is inherited by this play, although the subject is dug from the different aspect. However, as seen from the author’s efforts of rewriting the script several times, his attempts to reach the final conclusion was not successful for many years. The play was finally published after rewriting eight times during the period between 1931–1934.1 Days is considered to be the worst play of Eugene O’Neill. Ah, Wilderness!, which was highly acclaimed by the critics and which ran 289 performances, was written almost in the same 1 Doris V.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consolations of Death in Ancient Greek Literature
    $B 44 125 The Consolations of Death In Ancient Greek Literature By SISTER MARY EVARISTUS, MA. of THE SISTERS OF CHABITY, HALIFAX, N. S. A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Catholic Sisters College of the Catholic University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from Microsoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/consolationsofdeOOmorarich The Consolations of Death In Ancient Greek Literature SISTER MARY EVARISTUS, M.A. of THE SISTERS OF CHARITY, HALIFAX, N. S. A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Catholic Sisters College of the Cathoh University of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy NA.ICXAI SA'.TAL PICS' 'MC , WA'iUNOTON, D. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 7 CHAPTER I The Inevitableness of Death 10 Universality of death a motive for consolation. Views of death in Homer. Homeric epithets for death. No power can ward off death. Consolation afforded by the thought that it cannot come before the appointed time. Inevitableness of death as depicted in the Lyric Poets, * Tragedians, Plato, Lysias, Apollonius Rhodius, ps.- Plutarch, Plutarch. CHAPTER II Others Have Had to Die 19 Treatment of t&kos in Homer, ov <roi /xopoj. Tragic Poets, Plutarch, ps.-Plutarch. Examples of those who have borne sufferings nobly. Extension of t&kos. Even better men have died. CHAPTER III Death the Payment of a Debt to Nature 26 Should not complain when loan is claimed. Simonides of Ceos. Euripides. Plato. ps.-Plutarch. CHAPTER IV Death Not to be Regarded as Unexpected 28 Nothing ought to appear unexpected.
    [Show full text]
  • SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTATION and PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY: By
    SCEPTICAL ARGUMENTATION AND PHILOSOPHICAL THEOLOGY: TOPICS IN HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY by Máté Veres Submitted to Central European University Department of Philosophy In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Supervisor: Prof. Gábor Betegh CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2016 Table of contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 7 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 1. Keep calm and carry on: Sextan Pyrrhonism as a kind of philosophy ....... 17 1. Philosophy and inquiry ............................................................................................ 18 2. The road to Pyrrhonism ........................................................................................... 22 2.1. The 'origins' of scepticism (PH I. 12) ............................................................... 22 2.2. The goal of Pyrrhonism (PH I. 26 and 29)........................................................ 26 2.3. Men of talent ..................................................................................................... 34 3. The origin of Pyrrhonism ......................................................................................... 37 3.1. The Partisan Premise
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Athenian Democracy.Pdf
    Rethinking Athenian Democracy A dissertation presented by Daniela Louise Cammack to The Department of Government in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Political Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts January 2013 © 2013 Daniela Cammack All rights reserved. Professor Richard Tuck Daniela Cammack Abstract Conventional accounts of classical Athenian democracy represent the assembly as the primary democratic institution in the Athenian political system. This looks reasonable in the light of modern democracy, which has typically developed through the democratization of legislative assemblies. Yet it conflicts with the evidence at our disposal. Our ancient sources suggest that the most significant and distinctively democratic institution in Athens was the courts, where decisions were made by large panels of randomly selected ordinary citizens with no possibility of appeal. This dissertation reinterprets Athenian democracy as “dikastic democracy” (from the Greek dikastēs, “judge”), defined as a mode of government in which ordinary citizens rule principally through their control of the administration of justice. It begins by casting doubt on two major planks in the modern interpretation of Athenian democracy: first, that it rested on a conception of the “wisdom of the multitude” akin to that advanced by epistemic democrats today, and second that it was “deliberative,” meaning that mass discussion of political matters played a defining role. The first plank rests largely on an argument made by Aristotle in support of mass political participation, which I show has been comprehensively misunderstood. The second rests on the interpretation of the verb “bouleuomai” as indicating speech, but I suggest that it meant internal reflection in both the courts and the assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • Parmenides' Theistic Metaphysics
    Parmenides’ Theistic Metaphysics BY ©2016 Jeremy C. DeLong Submitted to the graduate degree program in Philosophy and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ________________________________ Chairperson: Tom Tuozzo ________________________________ Eileen Nutting ________________________________ Scott Jenkins ________________________________ John Symons ________________________________ John Younger Date Defended: May 6th, 2016 ii The Dissertation Committee for Jeremy C. DeLong certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis: Parmenides’ Theistic Metaphysics ________________________________ Chairperson: Thomas Tuozzo Date Defended: May 6th, 2016 iii Abstract: The primary interpretative challenge for understanding Parmenides’ poem revolves around explaining both the meaning of, and the relationship between, its two primary sections: a) the positively endorsed metaphysical arguments which describe some unified, unchanging, motionless, and eternal “reality” (Aletheia), and b) the ensuing cosmology (Doxa), which incorporates the very principles explicitly denied in Aletheia. I will refer to this problem as the “A-D Paradox.” I advocate resolving this paradoxical relationship by reading Parmenides’ poem as a ring-composition, and incorporating a modified version of Palmer’s modal interpretation of Aletheia. On my interpretation, Parmenides’ thesis in Aletheia is not a counter-intuitive description of how all the world (or its fundamental, genuine entities) must truly be, but rather a radical rethinking of divine nature. Understanding Aletheia in this way, the ensuing “cosmology” (Doxa) can be straightforwardly rejected as an exposition of how traditional, mythopoetic accounts have misled mortals in their understanding of divinity. Not only does this interpretative view provide a resolution to the A-D Paradox, it offers a more holistic account of the poem by making the opening lines of introduction (Proem) integral to understanding Parmenides’ message.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wisdom of the Unsayable in the Chinese Tradition Karl-Heinz Pohl
    3 The Wisdom of the Unsayable in the Chinese Tradition Karl-Heinz Pohl Concerning Eastern teachings such as Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, there is often widespread confusion about how these are to be classified—as religion or as philosophy. This problem, however, is culturally homemade: the distinction between religion and philosophy based on European cultural tradi- tions often does not apply when we leave our culture behind. Thus, the Eastern teachings, which are often referred to as “wisdom religions” (e.g. by Hans Küng), are either religion and philosophy or neither religion nor philosophy; whichever way you prefer ideologically. As is well known, there is a certain “family resemblance” (as Wittgenstein would put it) between Daoism and Buddhism. There is, however, very little that connects these Asian philosophies and religions with the European tradition emanating from Greco-Roman and Christian thought. This does not mean that their philosophemes would be fundamentally alien to the Europeans: at most they do not belong to the European mainstream. So the family resemblance could certainly be extended to certain European philoso- phers and schools: There is in Europe a tradition—from the pre-Socratics through the apophatic theology and mysticism of the Middle Ages to existen- tialism and philosophy of language of modernity—that has very much in common with Daoism and Buddhism. Hence, a blend of selected passages from Heraclitus (cf. Wohlfart 1998: 24–39), Neo-Pythagoreanism, Sextus Empiricus, Gnosticism, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Nicholas of Cusa, Meister Eckhart, Jacob Boehme, Montaigne, Hegel (cf. Wohlfart 1998: 24–39), Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida, et al.
    [Show full text]