PARMENIDES’ SEEMINGLY SELF-DEFEATING CONCLUSIONS

Abstract

Parmenides’ cryptic poem about the three different paths of knowledge has been a source of trouble for philosophers since it was first written. Countless philosophers have attempted to reconcile Parmenides’ words and turn his poem into a cohesive, consistent philosophical theory. Perhaps the most successful of all interpretations was suggested by Montgomery Furth in his article “Elements of Eleatic Ontology”. Parmenides’ poem presents three possible paths of thought, only one of which is meaningful: “it is.” Furth proposes that Parmenides was looking to present a theory of meaningful thought and speech and “it is” is the only thing we can meaningfully think or say. Still, there exist opponents of Parmenides’ method of discourse — and his conclusions therein. Their claim rests on the notion that the very nature of Parmenides’ argument makes meaningless claims which he boldly proposes in his poem. This paper will lay out Furth’s interpretation and investigate one of the most troubling aspects of Parmenides’ poem.