Q.6 - How does Gorgias deconstruct Parmenides’ understanding of Being?

Q. 6- How does Gorgias deconstruct Parmenides’ understanding of Being?

I.               Parmenides – being is complete, motionless and one.

a.     Argument for one.

                                               i.     If being is not one, then beings differ.

                                             ii.     If beings differ, then they either differ by being or by not being.

                                            iii.     Things cannot differ by being because this is not to differ at all.

                                            iv.     Things cannot differ by being because this is what they have in common.

                                              v.     So, beings do not differ.

b.     Without difference the one is complete.

c.      If complete, no motion.

                                               i.     Motion requires going from non-being to being.

II.             Gorgias’ deconstruction.

a.     Argument that nothing is:

                                               i.     If something is, either (A) what-is is, (B) what-is-not is or, (C) both (A) and (B).

                                             ii.     Not (B), for what-is-not is not.

                                            iii.     So not (C) (requires (B))

                                            iv.     Not (A).

1.     If (A) what-is is, then it is either eternal, generated, or both at once.

2.     Not eternal.

a.     If eternal, then no beginning.

b.     If no beginning, then unlimited.

c.      If unlimited, then nowhere.

                                                                                                     i.     Being somewhere requires being circumscribed by what it is in, which is a limit.

d.     If nowhere, then it is not.

3.     Not generated.

a.     If generated, then either from a thing that is or a thing that is not.

b.     Not from a thing that is.

                                                                                                     i.     If it is, then it already is and has not come to be. [completeness]

c.      Not from what is not.

                                                                                                     i.     What is not cannot generate anything, for what generates must share in existence.

4.     Not both, for they exclude each other.

                                              v.     So, nothing is.

b.     Argument that nothing is knowable, even if it is.

                                               i.     If things that are thought of are not things that are, then what-is is not thought of.

                                             ii.     Things that are thought of are not things that are.

1.     If things that are thought of are things that are, then things tare are not will not be thought of.

a.     Opposites have opposite attributes.

b.     What-is-not is opposite to what-is.

2.     But things that are not are thought of.

c.      Even if what-is can be comprehended, it cannot be communicated to another individual.

                                               i.     We communicate by logos, but logos is not the object.

                                             ii.     We can only communicate the logos to one another, not the object itself.


III.           How this undermines Parmenides

a.     Using a Parmenidean like dialectic of being and non-being, Gorgias concludes that nothing exists and that being cannot be known or communicated.

b.     G concludes a contradiction to Parm’s conclusion using Parm’s understanding of being as complete, motionless and one.

c.  Thus undermining Parm’s method and argument.