Keywords
predication
existence
forms
Parmenides’ Being
How to Cite
Abstract
Usage of the Greek verb ‘to be’ is generally divided into three broad categories — the predicative use, the existential and the veridical—and these usages often inform the way we understand Being in ancient philosophy. This article challenges this approach by arguing that Being is not the product of linguistic reflection in Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle; rather, these thinkers treat Being as the ontological and epistemological primary. Though this may overlap with the linguistic senses, it is not the same thing. The article is divided into three sections: the first one raises several basic issues with the predicative interpretation of Being, the second argues that Being is unified and singular in a significant sense and the third brings out the special pre-immanence of Being.
References
Ackrill, J. L., 1963, Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione: Translated with Notes, Oxford.
Angioni, L., 2021, “Aristotle’s Solution for Parmenides’ Inconclusive Argument in Physics I.3”, Peitho: Examina Antiqua 12, pp. 41-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/pea.2021.1.3
Brown, L., 1986, “Being in the Sophist: A Syntactical Enquiry”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 4, pp. 99-170.
Brown, L., 2008, “The Sophist on Statements, Predication and Falsehood”, in: G. Fine (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Plato, Oxford, pp. 437-462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195182903.003.0018
Burger, R., 1978, “Socratic Irony and the Platonic Art of Writing: The Self-Condemnation of the Written Word in Plato’s Phaedrus”, Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 9.3, pp. 113-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/swjphil19789344
Charlton, W., 1992, Aristotle: Physics Books I and II: Translated with Introduction, Commentary, Note on Recent Work, and Revised Bibliography, Oxford.
Cornford, F. M., 1935, Plato’s Theory of Knowledge: The Theaetetus and the Sophist of Plato: Translated with a Running Commentary, London.
Crivelli, P., 2012, Plato’s Account of Falsehood: A Study of the Sophist, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139015004
Curd, P., 1998, The Legacy of Parmenides: Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought, Princeton.
Curd, P., 2015, “Thinking, Supposing, and Physis in Parmenides”, Études platoniciennes 12, pp. 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/etudesplatoniciennes.741
Von Fritz, K., 1943, “νοῦς and νοεῖν in the Homeric Poems”, Classical Philology 38, pp. 79-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/362695
Von Fritz, K., 1945, “νοῦς, νοεῖν, and Their Derivatives in Pre-Socratic Philosophy (Excluding Anaxagoras): DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/362903
Part I. From the Beginnings to Parmenides”, Classical Philology 40, pp. 223-242.
Fronterotta, F., 2007, “Some Remarks on noein in Parmenides”, in: S. Stern-Gillet, K. Corrigan (eds.), Reading Ancient Texts: Volume I: Presocratics and Plato, Leiden. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004165090.i-230.6
Fronterotta, F., 2011, “Some Remarks on the Senses of Being in the Sophist”, in: A. Havl.ček, F. Karf.k (eds.), Plato’s Sophist: Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium Platonicum Pragense, Prague, pp. 35-62.
Frede, M., 1992, “Plato’s Sophist on False Statements”, in: R. Kraut (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Plato, Cambridge, pp. 397-424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521430186.013
Graham, D. W., 2006, Explaining the Cosmos: The Ionian Tradition of Scientific Philosophy, Princeton.
Gerson, L. P., 2006, “The ‘Holy Solemnity’ of Forms and the Platonic Interpretation of Sophist”, Ancient Philosophy 26, pp. 291-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil20062624
Heinaman, R., 1983, “Being in the Sophist”, Archiv für Gesichte der Philosophie 65, pp. 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agph.1983.65.1.1
Kahn, C. H., 2009, Essays on Being, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199534807.001.0001
Kahn, C. H., 2009a, “The Greek Verb ‘To Be’”, in: Kahn 2009, pp. 16-40 [= 1966, Foundations of Language 2, pp. 245-65]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199534807.003.0002
Kahn, C. H., 2009b, “A Return to the Theory of the Verb Be”, in: Kahn 2009, pp. 109-42 [= 2004, Ancient Philosophy 24, pp. 381-405].
Kahn, C. H., 2009c, “The Thesis of Parmenides”, in: Kahn 2009, pp. 143-66 [= 1969, The Review of Metaphysics 22, pp. 700-24]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199534807.003.0007
Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., Schofield M., 1983, The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813375
Koyré, A., 1957, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, Baltimore.
Kung, J., 1986, “Aristotle on ‘Being Is Said in Many Ways’”, History of Philosophy Quarterly 3, pp. 3-18.
Lear, J., 1988, Aristotle: The Desire to Understand, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570612
Martin, S. B., 2016, Parmenides’ Vision: A Study of Parmenides’ Poem, Lanham.
Matthen, M., 1983, “Greek Ontology and the ‘Is’ of Truth”, Phronesis 28, pp. 113-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852883X00077
Malcolm, J., 1967, “Plato’s Analysis of τὸ ὄν and τὸ μὴ ὄν in the Sophist”, Phronesis 12, pp. 130-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156852867X00093
McKirahan, R., 2008, “Signs and Arguments in Parmenides B8”, in: P. Curd, D. W. Graham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy, Oxford, pp. 189-221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195146875.003.0007
Moss, J., 2019, “Is Plato’s Epistemology about Knowledge?”, in: S. Hetherington, N. D. Smith (eds.)., What the Ancients Offer to Contemporary Epistemology, New York, pp. 68-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429344138-6
Mourelatos, A. P. D., 1979, “Some Alternatives in Interpreting Parmenides”, The Monist 62, pp. 3-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/monist19796217
O’Brien, D., 2000, “Parmenides and Plato on What is Not”, in: M. Kardauan, J. Spruyt (eds.), The Winged Chariot, Leiden, pp. 19-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004247543_003
O’Brien, D., 2013, “A form that ‘is’ of what ‘is not’: Existential einai in Plato’s Sophist”, in: G. Boys-Stones, D. El Murr, C. Gill (eds.), The Platonic Art of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 221-248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139856010.014
Owen, G. E. L., 1960, “Eleatic Questions”, Classical Quarterly 10, pp. 84-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800024423
Owen, G. E. L., 1971, “Plato on Not-being”, in: G. Vlastos (ed.), Plato: A Collection of Critical Essays, Vol. 1: Metaphysics and Epistemology, Basingstoke, pp. 223-267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-86203-0_13
Owens, J., 1978, The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics: A Study in the Greek Background of Mediaeval Thought, Toronto. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004626249
Politis, V., 2004, Routledge Philosophy Guide Book to Aristotle and the Metaphysics, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203647424
Prior, W. J., 1980, “Plato’s Analysis of Being and Not-being in the Sophist”, Southern Journal of Philosophy 18, pp. 199-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1980.tb01378.x
Reeve, C. D. C. (transl.), 2016, Aristotle, Metaphysics, Indianapolis.
Reeve, C. D. C., 2000, Substantial Knowledge: Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Indianapolis.
Witt, C., 1989, Substance and Essence in Aristotle: An Interpretation of Metaphysics VII-IX, Ithaca.
Vlastos, G., 1965-1966, “A Metaphysical Paradox”, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 39, pp. 5-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3129426
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Aidan R. Nathan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Peitho provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.