3) The Eleatic Monists - Parmenides and Zeno 

Thank you for all this great content. Going through your pre-Socratic videos for the second time. This particular video blew my mind considerably!

I was struggling in understanding Parmenides but this lecture saved me.. Thank u so much for providing this lecture. God Bless you Guys!

"What is not is not"denies potentiality. Parmenides denies all change and change presupposes non-being. Aristotle will solve the riddle by giving ontological status to potentiality. He will call it "matter". Newton was pretty much like Parmenides, claiming that there is only light and that darkness is only the absence of light. Goethe gave substance to darkness, showing that darkness and light are on an equal footing.

Im ADDICTED! Btw i listen to you on my study breaks - it refreshes me! Thanksss

You are great, thanks for this vídeos. I went to art school and my phylosophy teacher was never this clear. I really love these vídeos, and kind of Love you too hahaha

Thanks for uploading this! Even today in 2023, I think Parmenides' view of unity in everything that exists (is), is a thought that helps appreciate the existence and ourselves too, as we are all one unique being. These are priceless lectures!

Great lesson. You SEEM to be an empathetic teacher who knows his material; and no doubt you ARE one too! My questions to Parmenides (and Buddhists, etc), is, what is the source of the appearance of change and multiplicity, etc, of the illusion? Doesn't the illusion have its own being? Doesn't any answer indicate that we're talking of 'what is' in (at least) two different ways (a la Plato, perhaps)?

Can we appreciate the terrific job of Mr. Camerman. Blessed be the internet, where knowledge, valuable knowledge is for free...(minus the internet fee😞) I always say this, to be uninformed and downright dumb in a world today where knowledge is available for all (excluding the unprivileged..who don't even have access to food); is an entirely voluntary decision. And it is sad! I don't know if it's just me, but when i find knowledge, knowledge which i don't have, it hurts me. Because it reaffirms the idea, that i don't know, what i don't know, until i know, which means i truly don't know......and i have to know. Knowledge is everything. Knowledge is the goal. Knowledge is the dream. To be is to seek it!

Youre really a good teacher

It seems to me the Eleatic conception is caused by a limitation in language.

We can conceive of what is not in a logical sense. It's the denial of the existence of what is. Similarly we can conceive of Nothing in a logical sense. It's the absolute negation of any existence. But when we look at the world of being, all of this stops making sense, because it does not contain Nothing. But the world of being doesn't exhaust the world as such, which does include the world of non-being. Parmenides can claim there's no difference as such or there's no change at all because he discards the critical element of becoming in the first move in his argument. It's like trying to cognise a coin by looking at the tail only, totally ignoring the fact that the head always comes with the tail, making the whole together (assuming the strict monist interpretation).

Excellent teacher!

Παρμενίδης, Ζήνων, Μέλισσος

Peter Kingsley wrote books about Parmenides, Zeno, Empedocles & Pythagoras.

this is crazy intersting stuff

that which is is, sounds to me like the law of identity a is a, or a precursor to it.

Have you got a reading list to accompany these excellent course videos please. ?

Actually, what you hear when being in the absence of stimulus, especially noise, may not be the sound of the Universe but your tinnitus.

Im mid-way through the video and curious to the "being: is and non-being: aint" and he says or the goddess says that you shouldn't even talk of it being because if you bring it into being by talking about it then it is is being. So lets say a person is born with nerve damage to the point of cant physically feel, cannot hear, cannot see, cannot smell, ect. then you also have to take in account they cannot form the concept of time either because of this. Then to that individual nothing is in being, itself isn't even in being. Sorry if im incorrect about any assumptions.

"That which is a mug is not a water bottle" contradicts the arche of monism. It defines the being as an essence in relation to a different essence, while it is arguable that the two particulars both have essences that are. Are essences only specified only by negation, and thus need their opposites to be, or are essences positive entities, that can refer to themselves as their standards? I would say the elactics assume the former.Is is, and looks to itself to see what is is. It cannot look outside itself, as there is no outside to look to. (complete homogeneous totality) But If there is only one thing (monism), then the footrace between Achilles and tortoise cannot happen, as it assumes two things that cannot touch. "that which is one thing is not the same one thing"Heraclitus denies the self -same referral. This is no point by what is refers to itslef. All entites are at war, and the boundaries set of all in the homeostatis of the bow are the metron that delimit and thus specify entities. There are no entities (fixed essences).No unchanging, stand alone entities. Only the cosmic flux of war. At 33, I am slipping into Hiedegger....... at 53, I guess I should be a sadu. and go sit in a cave. Good lecture.

Beyond the Gates of night and day: Outside of Time or eternal time?

51:38 "I'll go Zeno on you!" 😂😂😂😂

Nothing is-not Either it is, or is-not, That is the question to ponder. What is-not cannot be known, For it cannot be that what-is-not is shown. Either it is or is-not, That is the question to ponder. What is-not cannot be pointed out, For in thinking and being, What-is is about. Either it is or is-not, That is the question to ponder. It is as it comes, and it does not cease, Nor does it move, to beyond or before, For that which is, will always be, For right now, forever more.

When your reasoning (logos) does not agree with what we observe in reality we have to consider that we have made a mistake in our reasoning. The mistake Zeno makes is that reality is quantized (there is a minimal amount of change required to change something). For example there is a minimum amount you have to move your feet to take a step, steps are quantized, so you will in fact catch the turtle when the next halfway point falls below the length of the next step (or stride in this particular example). This should have been very obvious to even a philosopher over 2000 years ago. I am not sure how they could ignore such things. The fact this holds down to the smallest observable particles is just further evidence of the quantized nature of reality.

Noooo this is getting confusing, and its only the beginning of the philosophy - its givin me the creeps :o so many unexplored things

So biased. An introductory course should be more neutral. This exposition is taking for granted so much things that are judged as polemic. The only label "monist" should be avoided, or be for the least Introduced as personal teacher's interpretation.

37:20 modern philosophers

Infinitesimals not infinity. Zeno, himself, criticizes the ancient conception of infinitesimals. Also dialectic may be a better term than argument or rationality since dialectic will be used later to defend rationalistic claims regarding God anda the immortality of the soul. I understand that dialectic involves logical argumentation (rationality) but dialectic is a form of investigation or inquiry in contrast to eristic argumentation where you're just trying to defeat your opponent and was also popular back then among men. Dialectic wasn't popular but became associated with philosophy because of Zeno and Plato. Dialectic is parodied by Monty Python for its propensity for coming up with erroneous conclusions. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zrzMhU_4m-g.html

I'm pissed that nobody asked about shrodinger's cat.

I wonder if the problem of nonexistence is the inability of languages to speak of it? Our ideas and language come from us, who exist. Maybe we cannot speak of nonexistence with our languages /shrug.

All that is, Is all that is izzing. So it must be, That what was, is not. But is not is, shaped by what was? Sure it may be so. But what was cannot be reached, For forever, it no longer is. And so, Your knowing of what was, Is something that izzes. And what is that thing that is izzing? If you have discovered what it is that izzes, Than you will remove it from your tongue, For it cannot be spoken. For it is not the thing of which you speak, But the speaking itself, And all that speaks with you.

However the statement that “my (nonexistent) brother has a great smile” must be true because it’s not false.

Wtf how did Parmenid figure this riddle on his own doing this religion like things .. wtfffff ??? Talking about myth and than hits u with something profound... Omg

Yes non-Being does exist its part of Being. Just like 0 and 1. Life and Death. It is all encompassing like ying/yang.