This paper comments on Anna Marmodoro’s “Stoic Blends.” That essay argues that the “Eleatic Principle” is central to Stoic conceptions of what is. It also investigates a key difference between Stoic and Aristotelian conceptions of the roles of form and matter in constituting what is: the Stoics’ insistence that form and matter are bodies, and their concomitant assertion that more than one independent body can occupy the exact same place. The present comment explores the relationships between the “Eleatic Principle,” the (...) arguments of the historical Eleatics, and Aristotle’s hylomorphism. (shrink)

The goddess’s speech in Parmenides’s fragments is framed by the opinions of mortals in at least two ways. First, the journey of the proem starts in the world described by mortals’ opinions, and the second part of the goddess’s speech explores those opinions. Second, throughout her speech, the goddess invokes features of the world according to mortals’ opinions—negation, coming-to-be, destruction—even when she is arguing for a road of inquiry that excludes those features. Further, we study the fragments by means of (...) the definitions and claims regarding what-is that we use to function and communicate in our mortal lives. This paper proposes to approach the fragments with an awareness of this framing. A result is that the logical conclusion of accepting mortals’ opinions is that mortals’ opinions are flawed; and that result is based on flawed opinions. The goddess’s account thus presents something like a Liar Paradox. (shrink)

On the road of inquiry that Parmenides’ goddess recommends, one is to say and conceive that what-is is one, unmoving, continuous, ungenerated, undestroyed, complete, and undivided. Yet the goddess’s arguments in favor of this road use negations, distinctions, divisions, and references to generation and destruction. The requisites of inquiry that she outlines are both defined on and at odds with other features that inquiry appears to require. This essay argues that the goddess’s arguments manifest something like a liar paradox: She (...) demonstrates on the basis of the opinions of mortals that mortals’ opinions are flawed. If so, then the goddess’s arguments do not establish that what-is is one and unchanging. What they show is that what inquiry and inference seem to require, given the opinions of mortals, is at odds with itself. To refer to what-is is to make aletheia impossible to reach. To be mortal, for Parmenides, is to journey through that incompleteness. (shrink)

While Melissus argues for a numerical monism, Parmenides and Zeno undermine claims to unconditional or transcendental knowledge. Yet the work of Parmenides and Zeno is not merely critical or eristic, and does not imply that philosophical inquiry is futile. Instead it shows the importance of reflection on the way the requisites of inquiry are represented in its results, and entrains an axiological investigation to every ontological one.

While Melissus argues for a numerical monism, Parmenides and Zeno undermine claims to unconditional or transcendental knowledge. Yet the work of Parmenides and Zeno is not merely critical or eristic, and does not imply that philosophical inquiry is futile. Instead it shows the importance of reflection on the way the requisites of inquiry are represented in its results, and entrains an axiological investigation to every ontological one.

Aristotle introduced the notion of matter to Greek philosophy. His use of the term ὕλη was essentially original, and he was the first to explore this ὕλη thematically and theoretically. Why, though, did he introduce the notion of matter? It is important to note that Aristotle first invokes ὕλη, and first lays out what he means by it, in discussions about causes. In fact, Aristotle’s interest in matter is as a cause, as responsible for the way things are, not as (...) a kind of independent entity. (shrink)

Aristotle introduced the notion of matter to Greek philosophy. His use of the term ὕλη was essentially original, and he was the first to explore this ὕλη thematically and theoretically. Why, though, did he introduce the notion of matter? It is important to note that Aristotle first invokes ὕλη, and first lays out what he means by it, in discussions about causes. In fact, Aristotle’s interest in matter is as a cause, as responsible for the way things are, not as (...) a kind of independent entity. (shrink)