For being you need thinking and for thinking you need being. Ok, I got it, Parmenides. But here is the thing I'm not following you: the reality(i.e; being) has already existed before thought and consciousness, thus it did not need thought for being. How Parmenides would solve this problem?
>>24836336How are you sure being existed before thought?
>>24836336I knida don't think he means "existent presenceful reality" when he says "being", I think he just means the general intelligible character of anything, which is why it's tied up with mind/thinking.
>>24836336the problem you're presenting is yours, not Parmenides'. Parmenides doesn't preach movement. Everything already Is. there is this dude, Bashar, who explains movement in a way that you might be able to comprehend how Being is immovable and yet all things seems to happen
>>24836717Who?
>>24836336Hi OP, this is basically addressed by Plotinus when he says that in its reversion, Nature contemplates Soul, and by extension the higher levels (including Being). All of Nature, animate or inanimate, is contemplating Being.See Treatise III.8.
>>24836717I never got that part, how is movement not real?
>>24837300What do you consider to be Real and why?
