Let's get it on with Parmenides.

[I and I]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

So this guy Parmenides used to do philosophy but has since stopped and now just works with his horses.... This is similar to heideggers "being" btw. Anyway, Parmenides asks the essential ontological question as to when is something different or the same? Deleuze dealt with this issue although in a kanthan way in his work In Difference and Repetition.

Example: when is a democracy different than a dictatorship? We have different ways of defining the two ideas but what historical examples sets them apart from each other?

Parmenides deals with... What is the "one" and what is the "multiple". The "one" according to Alain Badiou is being itself, the count of one and the multiple is pure ontology.


Your thoughts....

[Captain Colostomy]

My thought is you just name-dropped five guys I could give a shit less about.

You asked.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

So this guy Parmenides used to do philosophy but has since stopped and now just works with his horses.... This is similar to heideggers "being" btw. Anyway, Parmenides asks the essential ontological question as to when is something different or the same? Deleuze dealt with this issue although in a kanthan way in his work In Difference and Repetition.

Example: when is a democracy different than a dictatorship? We have different ways of defining the two ideas but what historical examples sets them apart from each other?

Parmenides deals with... What is the "one" and what is the "multiple". The "one" according to Alain Badiou is being itself, the count of one and the multiple is pure ontology.


Your thoughts....

Oh dear, I would have thought that someone who chose that avatar would have heard of "The People's Democratic Dictatorship"

[I and I]

My thought is you just name-dropped five guys I could give a shit less about.

You asked.

Name dropping 101

[Cato]

Is it too soon to ask if Parmenides is your stripper name?

[MindForgedManacle]

I'm not sure it's wise to try to move from Parmenides' ontological beliefs about reality to anything but the entirety of reality, but that's just me.

That aside, the question of 'when is something different or the same' is, I think, a path down which philosophy is getting away from. What I mean is, for a long time in philosophy (say, about 2400 years) whenever people try to pin down something into neat categories, someone will employ the so-called method of counter-examples.

The problem is that this sort of thinking ends up in Platonism, and in fact Plato's metaphysics was deeply influenced by Parmenides' and Zeno of Elea's philosophy through his teacher Socrates, who met Parmenides when Parmenides was an old man. This is exhibited in the Platonic answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Things themselves are but imperfect relflections of the Form of the property in question. So for example, no circle in this realm is truly a circle, just a necessarily imperfect approximation of the perfect circle expressed in the corresponding Platonic Form.

The relevance this has is that it sort of misses the point of language. Words aren't usually meant to refer to completely concrete things with no crossover. For example, take the word 'game'. There doesn't appear to be a possible definition of that word that covers all kinds of games entirely. Rather there is a family resemblance between some games and others. This is where Ludwig Wittgenstein's family resemblance theory comes into play, which I think solves a lot of the problems that seem to lead one to Platonism and takes into account how people actually use language.

[I and I]

I'm not sure it's wise to try to move from Parmenides' ontological beliefs about reality to anything but the entirety of reality, but that's just me.

That aside, the question of 'when is something different or the same' is, I think, a path down which philosophy is getting away from. What I mean is, for a long time in philosophy (say, about 2400 years) whenever people try to pin down something into neat categories, someone will employ the so-called method of counter-examples.

The problem is that this sort of thinking ends up in Platonism, and in fact Plato's metaphysics was deeply influenced by Parmenides' and Zeno of Elea's philosophy through his teacher Socrates, who met Parmenides when Parmenides was an old man. This is exhibited in the Platonic answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Things themselves are but imperfect relflections of the Form of the property in question. So for example, no circle in this realm is truly a circle, just a necessarily imperfect approximation of the perfect circle expressed in the corresponding Platonic Form.

The relevance this has is that it sort of misses the point of language. Words aren't usually meant to refer to completely concrete things with no crossover. For example, take the word 'game'. There doesn't appear to be a possible definition of that word that covers all kinds of games entirely. Rather there is a family resemblance between some games and others. This is where Ludwig Wittgenstein's family resemblance theory comes into play, which I think solves a lot of the problems that seem to lead one to Platonism and takes into account how people actually use language.

Parmenides has been the most significant thinker of all the Plato dialogues. It seems that all philosophical thought has been based on the question of Parmenides.

---

Heidegers notion of being was something that we can relate to but not get close to by using concepts and language. This was similar to Kants use of language to understand "the real" only Kant believes that language and concepts got us closer to the "real" being.

But if being is the whole then language and concepts can't divide what we call "being" into different categories, if it was separated and categorized then it wouldn't be "being" anymore.

Hegel (the greatest philosopher) had a different approach to Parmenides. Hegel believed that absolute knowledge (not to be confused with absolute truth) was the way to understanding "being" he called being "spirit". The different terms to describe "one" "being" "spirit" are all terms for the indescribable and unknowable world beyond our finitude of sense experience.

[MindForgedManacle]

Parmenides has been the most significant thinker of all the Plato dialogues. It seems that all philosophical thought has been based on the question of Parmenides.

Parmenides' thought has certainly been very influential, but Plato's thought has been far more impactful and influential on philosophical thought. Hence Alfred Whitehead's joke(?) that the entire history of philosophy is but an "extended series of footnotes to Plato."

Heidegers notion of being was something that we can relate to but not get close to by using concepts and language. This was similar to Kants use of language to understand "the real" only Kant believes that language and concepts got us closer to the "real" being.

From what I've read of Kant, he doesn't think it's possible to talk about "the real" because it lies beyond subjective experience, which is the necessary limit of what one can meaningfully speak of.

But if being is the whole then language and concepts can't divide what we call "being" into different categories, if it was separated and categorized then it wouldn't be "being" anymore.

That assumes being is this singular thing that can be ascertained. I'd stake my lot with Hume's thought that there is no undivided self, but at best a bunch of impressions and ideas.

Hegel (the greatest philosopher) had a different approach to Parmenides. Hegel believed that absolute knowledge (not to be confused with absolute truth) was the way to understanding "being" he called being "spirit". The different terms to describe "one" "being" "spirit" are all terms for the indescribable and unknowable world beyond our finitude of sense experience.

Hm, maybe I misunderstood you, as you seem to be saying the same thing I was saying about Kant's thought.

[I and I]

Parmenides has been the most significant thinker of all the Plato dialogues. It seems that all philosophical thought has been based on the question of Parmenides.

Parmenides' thought has certainly been very influential, but Plato's thought has been far more impactful and influential on philosophical thought. Hence Alfred Whitehead's joke(?) that the entire history of philosophy is but an "extended series of footnotes to Plato."

Heidegers notion of being was something that we can relate to but not get close to by using concepts and language. This was similar to Kants use of language to understand "the real" only Kant believes that language and concepts got us closer to the "real" being.

From what I've read of Kant, he doesn't think it's possible to talk about "the real" because it lies beyond subjective experience, which is the necessary limit of what one can meaningfully speak of.

But if being is the whole then language and concepts can't divide what we call "being" into different categories, if it was separated and categorized then it wouldn't be "being" anymore.

That assumes being is this singular thing that can be ascertained. I'd stake my lot with Hume's thought that there is no undivided self, but at best a bunch of impressions and ideas.

Hegel (the greatest philosopher) had a different approach to Parmenides. Hegel believed that absolute knowledge (not to be confused with absolute truth) was the way to understanding "being" he called being "spirit". The different terms to describe "one" "being" "spirit" are all terms for the indescribable and unknowable world beyond our finitude of sense experience.

Hm, maybe I misunderstood you, as you seem to be saying the same thing I was saying about Kant's thought.

Yes, that is why Parmenides thoughts on parts vs the whole or what is is and what is not is not basically sees a variation of this theme throughout history.

[Raven]

The People's Liberation Army has developed its vigorous revolutionary political work, which is an important factor in winning victory over the enemy, on the basis of a people's war and of the principles of unity between army and people, of unity between commanders and fighters and of disintegrating the enemy troops. - Wisdom of Chairman Mao