Advertisement
Parmenides argued that all things are one from the proposition that nothing comes from nothing. If there are things, our beliefs regarding things involve becoming. An acorn becomes a tree; a tree becomes a table; a table becomes fuel for a fire. But becoming is the notion of something coming into existence from having been nothing before. Therefore, there are not things. If there are not things, then there must be a thing, and this thing is being.
Aristotle takes the pain to refute Parmenides' argument that all things are one in Physics I.iii.
"[H]e treats 'being' as having only one meaning, whereas in reality it has several." (186a27)
Being can mean having existence. E.G. That creature has being.
Being can also mean existing in a particular way. E.G. That creature is a being (of some sort).
Every thing has being in the sense of having existence, but that does not make all things one. All things may belong to the category of being.
Every thing has being in the sense of being what it is, or existing in a particular way.
How could anyone argue that all things are one to begin with?
Aristotle takes the pain to refute Parmenides' argument that all things are one in Physics I.iii.
"[H]e treats 'being' as having only one meaning, whereas in reality it has several." (186a27)
Being can mean having existence. E.G. That creature has being.
Being can also mean existing in a particular way. E.G. That creature is a being (of some sort).
Every thing has being in the sense of having existence, but that does not make all things one. All things may belong to the category of being.
Every thing has being in the sense of being what it is, or existing in a particular way.
How could anyone argue that all things are one to begin with?
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Unsu...
Re: Are all things one?
Sun, June 13, 2004 - 9:35 AMAll Is One is one of the great simple maxims of knowledge. The concept is found in many traditions, by many names, but the essential concept is the same. The great physcicist Stephen Hawking describes it in scientific terms in "A Brief History of Time," for example, that everything is made up of quarks and subatomic energy structures, vibrations, and so on--that there is no "empty space" or division of existance--only differences in how structures are ordered. Therefore the difference between here and there, us and them, this and that, is artificial, one of human construct, but not of true nature and reality. That is what Aristotle is saying, that all things can be catagorized into the structure of "having being." That raises the question, can something Be, that is, exist, if it does not have the quality of "being." I personally would say yes, for "Being" itself is just a label humans make up for efficient communication, but not a true fact. We all, for example, may *be* a dream dreaming itself, as the Shaman would argue.
-
Re: Are all things one?
Fri, July 22, 2005 - 6:35 AMI think its stretching Aristotle a little to say that all things *are* one. This is going to be closer to neo-platonists like Porhyry and Iamblicus. Its not that Aristotle opposes what you are suggesting but it sounds alok more like later platonists in its emphasis. Aristotle wouldnt talk about the dstinction between essence and existence the way we do now. Which I think your comment hints at.
Is this making sense? I am writing on the fly. -
-
Re: Are all things one?
Sun, July 24, 2005 - 5:08 PMHi, Aristotle wasn't saying all things were one. Parmenides was.
-
