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. By setting forth its own unacceptable fiction, paralleling the elements of the Doxa in a ring-composition, the Proem simultaneously establishes the scope of the ensuing inquiry (divinity itself), and its target (traditional accounts of divinity). Maintaining Parmenides’ historical position as the “father of metaphysics,” the narrative that he advanced a strictly secular account of all reality is challenged. Instead, Parmenides is best understood as further advancing Xenophanes’ criticisms of traditional religion, an intellectual relationship which the ancient testimonia strongly supports. iv Acknowledgements: Parmenides’ poem opens by describing a young man on a far-ranging cosmic journey. The journey is fraught with obstacles, yet the youth is able to overcome them with the aid of his divine companions. Having reached his destination, he begins his formal study under a divine mentor. It is promised that by the end of his pupilage, the youth will know all things, surpassing all other mortals in understanding. Unlike the youth, I certainly do not complete my doctoral studies “knowing all things”— not even with respect to my own areas of specialization. My search for knowledge will never be completed—it is truly a journey, not a destination. Nevertheless, great progress along the path has been made. As the faculty and staff in both the Philosophy and Classics departments at the University of Kansas (KU), as well as the Philosophy and History departments at Washburn University (WU), have invaluably contributed to this progress in a myriad of ways, I sincerely thank them all. I particularly wish to thank faculty members who served on my examination committees, as well as those who have written supportive letters on my behalf. I am also grateful for all the additional financial support offered to me by all the departments at both schools—this certainly helped minimize at least one of the obstacles along the way. While my own mentors were not “divine,” they are exceptional mortals, and I am greatly indebted to them. I owe excellent instructors from high school who encouraged my academic inclinations, and whose example inspired me to take up teaching—i.e. Charlie Appelhanz, Mike Schultz, and Lynn Riney. I particularly owe Kim Morse and Tom Prasch (WU—History) who, in addition to providing excellent instruction during my undergraduate career, have ever remained founts of encouragement for my graduate aspirations. However, the undergraduate mentor to whom I owe the most is Jorge Nobo (WU—Philosophy), whose lectures and v friendship led me to recognize and embrace my true calling as a philosopher, rather than as an historian. For that, I cannot ever thank him enough. I want to thank Stanley Lombardo (Classics—KU) for the opportunity to study Parmenides under his sage guidance, and magnanimously serving as my MA thesis advisor in Classics even after his retirement. Foremost, I want to thank my primary graduate mentor, Thomas Tuozzo (Philosophy—KU). His patience and flexibility were crucial for the success and enjoyment of my graduate career, while his pointed challenges and introspective suggestions led me to write far better than I ever could have on my own. My formal journey in search of knowledge under the tutelage of others has certainly not been “cosmic”—I have yet to even move away from my hometown in Kansas. Nevertheless, it has been long (18 years of near continuous collegial enrollment) and arduous, with many obstacles to overcome. At times, it even seemed Sisyphean, replete with existential angst. Fortunately, like the Parmenidean youth, I was privileged to have some of the most stalwart companions. I thank my fellow graduate students, whom I learned a great deal from. I am particularly thankful for the friendship of, and intellectual engagement with, fellow students Ashley Acosta-Fox and Ian McDaniel. I cannot thank my parents enough. Not only did they foster a deep love of literature and learning in me from early on, they have indefatigably and uncritically continued to support my academic aspirations, both financially and emotionally. Most of all, however, I must thank my wife and children. They had to face the unique obstacles of this journey along with me, as well as share in the sacrifices required. As much as completing this journey means to me, their love and support means far, far more. vi Table of Contents Contents Abstract: ....................................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements:..................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Parmenides: Life and Intellectual Influences ....................................................................................... 8 A. Biography .......................................................................................................................................... 9 B. Intellectual Influences ..................................................................................................................... 10 i. Aminias/Pythagoreanism ............................................................................................................ 12 ii. Xenophanean Influences............................................................................................................. 13 C. Xenophanean Influences and the Significance for Interpretative Models ..................................... 21 2. Traditional Reconstructions & Interpretative Approaches ................................................................. 25 A. Reconstructing the Proem .............................................................................................................. 27 i. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 27 ii. Grounds for Reconstruction ........................................................................................................ 29 B. Reception of the Proem .................................................................................................................. 30 i. Allegorical Approaches ............................................................................................................... 32 ii. Cultural and Mythical Themes .................................................................................................... 34 iii. Minimization & Dismissal ............................................................................................................ 36 C. Reconstructing Aletheia and Doxa .................................................................................................. 39 i. Aletheia: Summary ..................................................................................................................... 39 ii. Aletheia: Grounds for Reconstruction ....................................................................................... 42 iii. Doxa: Summary .........................................................................................................................