I've read the second half in many different translations, gone in with a Greek dictionary, read secondary sources, and I still have no fucking clue what it's supposed to mean. I'm starting to think that it is even more impenetrable than Hegel's Logic, which I at least mostly got eventually (except for the Essence part, which always filters me).It's literally torture.I'm not going to lie, while I think I have the surface material of the Philebus ok, that's also filtering me.
Just be you're self
>>25401774Isn't the point that Parmenides was coo coo in the head?
*ahem*
>>25401774Well, maybe a way to start is to consider the lead up to it. What do you take Parmenides to be saying in introducing the second half? How do you understand his stated aims?
>>25401918He tried to assert the forms were contradictory by the inference that a perfect "being" cannot be located in multiplicity if it claims perfection in totality which i think is a category mistake. Even if our minds (and this how Kant saw things) organized space time intuitively it doesn't mean that there's no ultimate "being". Parmenedies probably just couldn't mentally parse objects, he needed direct evidence.
>>25403246I don't think this reading quite holds up. The issues are: what are there Forms of? (Socrates asserts there are Forms of insensibles, tosses and turns over whether there are Forms of sensibles, denies there are Forms of heaps.) If the beings of experience are separate from the Forms, how do they even participate? Do they participate in a part of the whole Form? Do they participate in each other or not? Are they self-predicating, and, if not, what is their content/what are they, or if so, how are they distinguishable from the beings of experience?>Parmenedies probably just couldn't mentally parse objects, he needed direct evidence.It's absolutely not that, because he says right after all of his objections to Socrates, "I really admired you when you were speaking to [Zeno], because you wouldn't investigate this perplexity among the visible things nor even in reference to them, but only in reference to what most of all one should grasp by speech and consider forms."
>>25403267Why, because I asserted that Parmendies had some kind of cognitive defect?
>>25401774what is the not?
>>25403654>Not is not what is is what not, how else could it not'nt?.>By the Dog, Parmenides!
>>25401774ps2 rock band guitar hero algorithm
