The Origins of Metaphysics - How Parmenides was the First and Last Prophet of the One Being

I think you should see Heidegger interpretation of Parmenides in his book Parmenides and Identity and Difference. It "reveal" more about Parmenides approach not as "logical" which is the product of his writing but as "guidance" that reveals.

So, why exactly are Parmenides' what-is (or being as such), Plotinus' One/Monad and Aquinas' Pure Actuality all NOT the same thing? what is separating them? Seems to me that the philosophers of all ages were using different languages to express the same thing.

You are so right by saying that out prejudices are the very hinderance to do the actual philosophical work.

Man, I feel like I just jumped in the deep-end of the pool without understanding anything about swimming, water, or breathing.

It seems to me the Eleatic conception is caused by a limitation in language. Perhaps language is merely a symbol?

all this bugs me but im of the school which believe that the world is on a metaphysical level reality is purely a state of content ceaseless change, and change is ironicly the only fundamental content of the reality we find ourselves a part. Things and the information held in their relations is meaningless and functionless without Time, and Time is meaningless with out change to occur within it. We mistakenly believe we live in a world of things, when truly we live in a world of events.

Parmenides being the first and last is so true.
He founded it and we still haven't attained to his level.

some of her work remind of plates in Thomas Wright's An Original Theory

btw thanks for introducing me to Hilma af Klint.

This is THE video!

So, what you're saying is... there is no spoon?

Amazing episode, but I think I'm going to need to rewatch this one to fully wrap my head around it. I feel like it's all going to make more sense the second time.

Thanks so much for your work!

Easy to see from episodes like this and your discussion of the Monas Hieroglyphica, that you have a giant hard on for ontology. And who can blame you?

When you talk about how radical it feels, looks, what Parmenides is doing, I have to agree. There were philosophers in his time making strides, but this was a quantum leap. Metaphysics was maturing hardcore, even the Indian philosophical schools in all their variety and intrigue, didn't begin writing about monism so radically until much later than Parmenides lived.

Hey Justin,

Thanks once again :) quick question if you’re able to answer:

Do you see any common ground or connection between a) Parmenides and his statements of thinking of being as the only truth and ultimately there being no change
b) The process of atma-vichara (Self-enquiry) that formed part of the teachings of Adi Shankacharya and Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, in which one is asked to retract their consciousness, back from seemingly individuated objects in flux (which is false/delusion), back to the very root of their conscious identity/heart of awareness/ ‘I’ sense/ root of ‘I am’, until the dualistic sense of differentiation collapses and reveals pure being, which is reality, which is truth, and is therefore described as eternal, unchanging and Self-illuminating without the possible existence of any ‘other’ whatsoever?

Hope this makes sense and all the best Dr.

I have nothing to add to those who have said before me: what an epic and profoundly difficult video. Thank you and I'll be back... repeatedly 😂

Great job :: doc. '''''

Brings Heidegger to mind! A little bit of 20th century Being

The black metal shirt. Is 🔥

This is very very similar to the teachings from the Heart Sutra, by Guan Yin Bodhisattva.

I appreciate this channel, and the work (metaphysical) the creator puts into it. Thank you for introducing Parmenides to me, he seems to follow the same path i am on.

Does "now" have a beginning or an end?

This summation was a Masterwork. Insert heartfelt applause.

Super good! Thanks for the bibliography

Let’s see what Advaita Vedanta says. There is only Being. Pure Being can manifest itself to itself as appearances, All the phenomena are appearances, “Appearance” is the root meaning of the word “Phenomenon”. So, the real nature of everything and every being is Being. The multiplicity is just an appearance, that is, the single seems to be multiple. Based on interpretations of what we perceive, we create divisions in life. But interpretations depend on knowledge, which is always incomplete, The senses and reason are limited. All the interpretations about “what is” are incomplete, therefore false. So, division and separativiness are false.
Perceiving this, there is quietness, silence, regarding the comprehension of the totality. The Silence is the Truth. Silence is immeasurable. It is unknowable from the point of view of the appearance named "Intellect". Silence is what I am, because Silence is the essence.
"Tat Twam Asi" (Thou art That).

Dude when you said "cool black metal shirt" I was like ha sounded like he said black metal.... wait... WHAT THE FUCK dude that is so sick. Just made me love your channel 10x more

0. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)

The Word of Truth is ever faithful (loyal, true, isomorphic) to Reality (That which is/That I am).

Now is constant. Perception is variable.

Since that which is not, is not; That which is, is all-inclusive/Absolute.

Being = That which is/That I am.
Knowing = Being aware of being aware.
Doing = Letting this moment be as pleasant as possible.

Trivium:

Grammer = Knowledge
Logic = Understanding
Rhetoric = Wisdom

Excellent video! Do you think you will ever cover Bishop George Berkeley's epistemology or Spinoza's metaphysics?

i can not stop rewatching, this was really cool !

I especially enjoy that you use the word "comprise" correctly. I will contribute to your weird channel.

I enjoyed this. Thank you

This sounds very much like the radical non dualism of A Course In Miracles. I would love to hear your thoughts on ACIM, Parmenides and Advaita.

Bravo!
Ex nihilo nihil fit
Maybe you would be kind to make an episode on creatio ex nihilo too
Many thank you for your work you are a rare find

I like how the aesthetic of the video reminded me of Eris. "The Goddess". The red sphere reminded me of the apple of discord. I'm very biased. Eris is my middle name. I was supposedly named after a priest, who was named after a racehorse that won his father money the day he was born, who was named after her. When you get down to this layer of deduction you ultimately end up nestling up to your biases for comfort.

Have you considered doing a video or two on Levinas?

Listening to these lecture, I have realized the possible compatibility between Parmenid's thought and Shopenhauer's philosophy. In the sense of a world divided between representation (not being) and will (being). Would that make sense?

You have quite the list of books. Which book or three would you recommend to START with? Thanks!

Oh hum.

It's the upper quarries find interesting and so does science wander

Thank you! I love your introduction on Parmenides! Witty, about being an early adopter - then again, Leibnitz, on the other hand, always referred to Parmenides' question as the first one must ask, why there is something, rather than nothing. More importantly, I should add that this unexpected reverie on Parmenides inspired me to some additional puzzle pieces I think are vital in understanding Platonism and a hypothesis of mine about Platonism correctly understood as implying a kind of super-empiricism of sorts.

nice, nice, very nice

I cannot understand Metaphysics. My aunt (rip) tried to teaching it to me since I was a child and I couldn't understand. Even after watching this, I don't understand it.

Thanks for the video, maybe a recommendation of someone that will explain it in simple terms?

It's a complicated topic.

As we ascend through levels of abstraction, we come to the abstraction of everything. The
existence of something transitions into the existence of everything, into existence as such, into
being.
If earlier it was possible to say about something that it may exist and may not exist, now one
can say about being only that it exists.
The abstraction of the lower level can be not only asserted, but also denied. How? We always
abstract something; that is, abstraction always relies on some reality. The basis for denying an
abstraction is that part of reality that is not included in the first assertion. For example, we are
talking about the beautiful, and this abstraction is based on the totality of beautiful objects. We
can also talk about the non-beautiful, the ugly. This negation of the beautiful is based on the
totality of non-beautiful objects.
However, being as such cannot be denied, as it rests on the whole of reality. In reality, there is
nothing that does not exist. Nevertheless, a philosopher says that being does not exist. How is
this possible? This is possible due to the dialogic nature of language. Language permits us to
deny something, not on the basis of what exists or does not exist in reality, but on the basis of
the interlocutor’s unwillingness to agree with the opponent’s assertion, or on the basis of a play
on words and the desire to turn any statement inside out. Thus we come to the denial of being.
Despite the meaninglessness of this denial, we take it into account, since the thinkable is
already a reality, and therefore makes sense.
As long as the denial of abstraction leads to a partial denial of reality in favor of the affirmation
of another part of reality, abstract reality coexists peacefully with ordinary reality. We duplicate
reality and try to figure out which of the two is closer to the truth.
But speaking of being, we exhaust all reality. There is no longer a part of reality in favor of which
one could deny being. We affirm: “Being (abstract) is being (real)”. At this moment someone
comes and denies: “Being (abstract) is not being (real)”. That is, being is not being, but... And
here follows the assertion: but nonbeing. This is what language has to offer us.
Before the emergence of nonbeing, our search for truth oscillated between “being is being” and
“being is not being”. Having appeared, nonbeing (abstract) immediately adds nonbeing (real),
after which the jigsaw puzzle is filled.
How this looks like is shown in Plato’s Parmenides. The four phases of abstracting everything -
being (real) -> being (abstract) -> nonbeing (abstract) -> nonbeing (real) - exhaust the
possibilities given to us by language. With this initial enlightenment, the philosophy of Icarus
ceased to exist, and the philosophy of Daedalus, having made a two thousand-year flight,
recently landed safely. What has it been doing all this time? Descending from the heights of
abstraction, it built philosophical constructions one above the other, and it looked like growing a
tree with a lush crown - until the crown rested on the ground and it became clear that the tree
was upside down. Regardless of how it looked, this philosophy served its purpose: it was the
laboratory of abstraction, which provided all possible directions of thought with the full range of
abstracting tools.

So there is, that which is One that expresses, Being and non-being contemplated as a knower without a thinker, and if it knows at least One thing some might call it intelligent, as it only knows One thing, that which is. ..... maybe?

In these times, when it seems that the world has been ruined, I find the teachings of Parmenides to be strangely comforting. 😊

So pocht das Schicksal an die Pforte