3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great intro to Parmenides, March 21, 2011
This review is from: Plato : Parmenides (Focus Philosophical Library) (Paperback)
Parmenides is one of the most difficult work of Plato (the other one being Timaeus), thus, a good introduction to this book is needed. I gave Whitaker's translation 5 stars for the following reasons:
1. He claimed in the introduction that this edition is an attempt to fill the lack of a good introductory text to Parmenides. "This volume is for new comers to Parmenides", Whitaker wrote in the commentary note.
2. The structure of the book is such that it helps new students of Parmenides: it has a good summary of the chapters and brief summary of the 8 arguments for The One. And most helpful, in each of the page, in the top left corner, there is a one line summary of what that page contains. A bibliography and glossary of terms are also provided.
3. The translation itself is easy to follow and definitelty better than Jowett.
4. Since this is an introduction to Parmenides, Whitaker acknowledges that he does not go further into detail analysis of Parmenides, instead he hopes that this book will povides "hints to other dialogues, to try to learn what Parmenides on its own can teach us."
Now, on my own commentary to Parmenides:
First, before anyone take up this book, I would strongly suggest to do some basic reasearch on who Parmenides (the historical figure, not Plato's Parmenides) is and what his teachings are about, if you have the time, read his original work as well. This will help alot in following Plato's Parmenides.
Second, read other Pre-Socratic philosophers (or at least do some basic research) especially Heraclitus, and also the sophists, such as Protagoras.
Third, most importantly, do not attempt to understand every single line of Parmenides' 8 arguments, I believe that Plato meant it NOT to be understood. The spirit of the book is to show the failure of human language in explaining what The One is.
Plato's Parmenides I will argue is an atempt to contrast 2 radical philosophical views of his time: one is Heraclitus, and the other is Parmenides. Heraclitus and his followers (see also Protagoras) believe in the absolute relativism: eveything is changing, nothing is constant. His well known statement is: you cannot put your feet twice in the same space in the river because the moment you lift up your feet the river is changing. The problem with this view is that, it drives us to absolute relativism. In Protagoras' view: men are the measures of all things. Truth will depends on which/whose perspectives. Plato rejects this view because in this view conversation, and dialogue is not possible. And thus knowledge is not possible.
On the other extreme of Heraclitus is Parmenides, who believe on the absolute permanent: The One. Everything is reducable to this "The One", it does not change, it does not move, it does not differ from other, and so on. In Plato's Parmenides, Plato has shown the impossibility of language to explain what The One is. He dedicated 2/3 of the book on this (from 137 until the end). Parmenides' The One, therefore, also cannot be explained by human language, and thus in this case, just like the case with Heraclitus, the dialogue failed and therefore, knowledge is not possible.
So, then what? Plato offers his own theory: the theory of "The Form". He offers this as the best alternative to both Heraclitus' and Parmenides'. Plato agrees that some things are changing (our human perception tells us that things are changing, that the river is flowing and thus you can't step twice in the same spot), he also agrees that logic is paramount, something must be permanent, something cannot possibly be changing all the time and makes knowledge possible. Plato's theory of The Form is the compromise between these 2 extreme views. Only through the Theory of the Form can we make knowledge possible.
But, as we have seen, Parmenides shows that Plato's theory of The Form is faulty. Plato aknowledges this, but I beleive, he is also saying in Parmenides that his theory of The Form is still the best alternative. As if he is saying: we cannot accept Heraclitus, we must accept The Form even if it is not perfect and has lots of trouble, because if we dont, the alternative to it is Parmenides' The One. And I have shown you that The One is unintelligible. Thus, you may not like The Form, but Heraclitus and Parmenides are worst!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
