Summary Of Aristotle's 'Argument Of Parmenides'

2363 Words10 Pages
1. Explain Aristotle’s defense of real change and real difference against Parmenides.

The Argument of Parmenides originated as a Pre Socratic Philosopher on the question of the day. “What is the nature of reality? (This is the first metaphysical question that all Pre Socratics were responding too)
Parmenides answer to the metaphysical question was Permanence (change is an illusion)
*Discuss Parmenides’ arguments for the conclusion that reality is only one sort of thing which never changes.
Parmenides believed that change is an illusion: He proposed that all reality is permanent. (the root word permanence is from Parmenides)
Parmenides approaches his belief in the “one” in an unencumbered freedom that did not include theology or
…show more content…
His focus is more on being and becoming. Plainly stated, Parmenides says that whatever is, is. If it is what it is it would continue to be whatever that is. If turns into something else than it is not ever what we thought it was in the first place. Either it is or it is not. If fire produces smoke it is not that once it was fire and now its smoke.

Heraclitus is part of the argument because they argued against each other. Aristotle came much later and expanded on the Heraclitean view
So how did Heraclitus explain the nature of reality?
His metaphysical position is addressed in his underlying principle of change. He felt that as equally as important as explaining the nature of reality we had to understand how the one becomes many.
The main points of his philosophy are:
Change is the underlying principle of all reality
The quote always associated with Heraclitus is “You can never step twice into the same river “because the waters are ever changing and flowing.

Parmenides believed that change is an illusion: He proposed that all reality is permanent. (the root word permanence is from
…show more content…
Remember that for Aristotle meant something different than what we intend when we say cause. We are referring to an action or event that occurred prior to another. For Aristotle, causes meant explanation. This explanation works fine for a man made article, so how does he explain cause in nature?
Aristotle said that all of nature strives to reach its end (telos), which explains its behavior. For example when a seed is planted the roots (go down not up) then the plant begins to grow it sprouts up as it strives to reach its natural end. Every part of nature has a natural capacity to fulfill its purpose (end) in relation to the universal purpose of the thing in that particular category. Each product of nature has a distinctive function. When left alone it operates according to its natural ends, it is only with interference from external forces that a natural phenomenon is altered. So in this way Aristotle attributed the same four causes to natural as well as artificial or induced causes.
(1) What is it?------------------------------ The formal
Open Document