Metaphysics: The Eleatic Concept of Reality
philosophy·@smyle·
0.000 HBDMetaphysics: The Eleatic Concept of Reality
<html> <p>Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy with controversial and interesting philosophical questions. It is the branch of philosophy that tries to question what we term ‘real’. Many of the ancient Greek scholars have tried to look at what constitute reality. They focused on the primal stuff which every other thing emanated from. <em>I will try to discuss the Ionians philosophy in my next post.</em></p> <p><em>https://s20.postimg.org/49o6xacql/Perception-vs-_Reality-_Think.jpg</em></p> <p><a href="http://www.thefractions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Perception-vs-Reality-Think-672x372.jpeg"><em>Credit</em></a></p> <p>Today, let’s look at the philosophy of the Eleatic movement. Metaphysicians ask questions such as what is real, can it be known, and does it exist? If it is known and it does exist, what is it? Is it one or many? These questions brought about two schools called monism and pluralism (dualism). The first school argues that reality is one while the latter argues that reality is dual. </p> <p>Eleaticism is a form of monism. Monism is the view that one reality is real and any form of dualism or pluralism is illusion. Metaphysics centers on questions like what real, unreal, appearance and reality. </p> <p>The Eleatic scholars are Xenophanes, Parmenedes, Zeno and Melissus. These scholars believe in oneness of reality. Some of the questions the Eleatic scholars raised are: What is the mode of reality, what really constitute the real? Is reality located in space and time? Is it in a state of flux or permanence? </p> <p><em><strong>Xenophanes</strong></em></p> <p>Xenophanes, the founding father of the movement rejects anything plural or dual. He argued that god who is the sum of all that exists is 'ungenerated' and cannot move from place to place. He argued that nothing is real except the universe as an indivisible and unchangeable reality which is at par with the common sensical perception and the apprehension of the universe as a plurality of substances. He questions anthropomorphism and immortality of the traditional religion.</p> <p><em><strong>Parmenedes</strong></em></p> <p>Parmenedes, like his predecessor argued that the only Real or Absolute thing was ‘Ens’ or ‘Being’. </p> <p>He argues:</p> <blockquote><strong>Neither the contrary of Ens (non-Ens) nor anything intermediate between Ens and non-Ens could be conceived, or named, or reasoned about. Ens comprehended all that was real, without beginning or end, without part or difference, without motion or change perfect and uniform like a well turned sphere.</strong></blockquote> <p>The Ens, he argued, belong to the realm of truth and anything outside it is merely an opinion. The realm of truth as conceived by Parmenedes is self existent, ungenerated, permanent and immutable.</p> <p>We perceive colors, place, motion, space and sensible qualities but all these are illusions according to Parmenedes. While another scholar, Heraclitus argued that things are constantly changing, Parmenedes rejects such view because Ens as argued by him neither changes nor moves. </p> <p>On this ground, reality for the Eleatic is static. Reality for them does not come into being and it does not perish. </p> <p>This idea can be related to the idea of God in order to fully grasps Parmenedes point. God is a self-existent Being. It is very hard to conceive God moving, coming into being or going out of being. He is simply immutable.</p> <p>To consider a God moving from one place to another, a God that is changing, a God that can go out of existence is to be delusional. So for parmenedes and Xenophanes, reality is one and it does not change. Reality for these scholars is what it is in itself and not what it appears to be. For the Eleatic movement, our senses are not reliable and we should not use them in making any judgement. </p> <p>Can we really say that because appearance can be misleading and deceptive then we should reject any sensible perception as false? I doubt if we can adequately argue this. The point is both reason (or intuition) and senses are important.</p> <p>For instance, how do you explain color yellow to a blind man? This is someone who has not seen a color before let alone know what makes something color yellow. You cannot even explain color black except you already concluded that since he is a blind man, then he must be seeing black! This would be a wrong step because the idea of ‘seeing’ is a negation to the idea of being blind.</p> <p>Human senses cannot totally be wrong. Without our senses, it would be hard to know hot, cold, light, thick, short, long, etc. This is because when you claim that something is short, the claim says nothing about the thing in question. If something is short for me, it might be tall for you. So shortness or tallness is not a property of a thing, it is just how we describe the thing. </p> <p>What is your view about the Eleatic scholars on permanence? Do you think change is truly an illusion? Is sense perception totally useless? </p> <p>I would love to read your comments.</p> <p>Thanks for your time. Your boy @smyle the philosopher.</p> <p>Reference: S Ade Ali, <em>Ancient Metaphysics: The Eleatics and Heraclitus</em>, 1997, Nigeria.</p> </html>
👍 smyle, sweetestglo-eu, praise-eu, pasaift, mike4christ, berewarded, ayobami99, organik, ememovic, holabisi, plojslydia, nuges, chidiebere, lottoprof, dray91eu, thepreacher, clumsysilverdad, eurogee, xramonahx, honourmaus, oniraphaeleu, sammyswt, bekky, dayjee, brainz, mayowa-eu, blinks, edith4angelseu, drigweeu, deadsparrow, mimy, turpsy, naijaguy, ceyebrity, oluwoleolaide, stsl,