Les deux manières d’expliquer la réalité proposées par Parménide

• Authors: Nestor Luis Cordero

Title variants

EN

Parmenides’ Two Ways of Explaining Reality

Abstracts

EN

Towards the end of fragment 1 of his Poem, Parmenides puts forward two methods or paths that a priori explain the same object of study: the existence of the fact or state of being. One of the options leads to the core of the truth and is, therefore, pursued. The other is merely a set of contradictory opinions and is, accordingly, abandoned. These two paths are expounded in the rest of the Poem, while fragment 4 shows that even the erroneous conception, which had to be set aside, can still be fruitful. Once the firm foundation of truth has been established, fragments 10 and 11 propose to widen the inquiry to the whole of reality. This interpretation suggests a rejection of the arrangement of the Poem that has become canonical, and a criticism of the doxographic tradition that since Aristotle has “Platonised” the philosophy of Parmenides by assimilating the “opinions” (which are only points of view) to the “appearances” (in the Platonic sense of the term).

Keywords

EN

Truth; Opinions; Doxography; Fülleborn; Simplicius; Plato; Being; Parmenides

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Peitho. Examina Antiqua
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 13-24

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Nestor Luis Cordero

• University of Rennes 1, France

• https://orcid.org/0000000331987744

References

• Cordero, N.L., 2004, « La pensée s’exprime « grâce » à l’être (Parménide, fr. 8.35) », La revue philosophique 129, p. 5–13. https://doi.org/10.3917/rphi.041.0005
• Cordero, N.L., 2016, « Aristote, créateur du Parménide díkranos que nous héritons aujourd’hui », Anais de filosofia classica 10, p. 1–25.
• Cordero, N.L., 2021, « Les « opinions des mortels » de Parménide et un éventuel Pythagorisme éléatique », Archai 31, p. 1–23.
• Curd, P., 2004, The Legacy of Parmenides, Las Vegas.
• Estienne, H., 1573, Poesis Philosophos, Genevae.
• Falus, R., 1960, « Parmenides – Interpretationen », Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 8.
• Fülleborn, G.G., 1795, Fragmente des Parmenides, Züllichau.
• Jaeger, W., 1947, The Theology of Early Greek Philosphers, Londres.
• Kranz, W., 1916, Über Aufbau und Bedeutung des Parmenideischen Gedichtes, Berlin.
• Licciardi, I.A., 2016, Parmmenide tràdito, Parmenide tadìto nel Commentario di Simplicio alla «Fisica» di Aristotele, Sankt Augustin.
• Mouraviev, S., 2018, « Ersatz de vérité et de réalité? ou Comment Parménide (B 1.28–32) a sauvé les apparences (avec la collaboration épistolaire de Scott Austin, décédé en 2014) », en : M. Pulpito, P. Spangenberg (eds.), Ὀδοί νοήσαι / Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero, Bologne.
• Peyron, A., 1810, Empedoclis et Parmenidis fragmenta ex codice Taurinensis Bibliothecae restituta et illustrata, Leipzig, 1810.
• Reale, G., 1991, Parmenide. Poema Sulla Natura, Milan.
• Rossetti, L., 2017, Un altro Parmenide, 2 vols., Bologne.
• Santoro, F., 2018, « A Lua, Vênus e as Estrelas de Parmênides », en : M. Pulpito, P. Spangenberg (eds.), Ὀδοί νοήσαι / Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero, Bologne.
• Tarán, L., 1965, Parmenides, Princeton.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/PEA.2022.1.1

Biblioteka Nauki

28408711