Aristotle And Parmenides On Change

Below is a short sample of the essay Aristotle And Parmenides On Change. If you sign up you could be reading the rest of this essay in under two minutes. Registered users should login to view the essay.

Aristotle And Parmenides On Change

ARISTOTLE AND PARMENIDES ON CHANGE
Looking at the arguments for change derived by Parmenides and Aristotle there are many differences, yet there are also some similarities. While Aristotle may disagree with much of Parmenides argument, he does agree with some of the strongest premises in the argument. In this paper I will present Aristotle’s rebuttal of Parmenides denial of change, as well as play the “devil’s advocate” for each of them in defending their views.
At the beginning of Parmenides argument for change he asserts that not being is nothingness. Aristotle is in disagreement with this premise, because he believes that being has many meanings, and is not only existential. “Having reached this result, they make things worse by going on to say that there is no plurality, but only being itself” (Aristotle Physics 191a) However, soon in the argument Parmenides holds that nothingness does not exist, or that not-being (nothingness) is not. Aristotle agrees with this premise and it receives further support from the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. Parmenides third premise suggests that if one can think, one can think only what is (being). This premise is partly true for Aristotle, as he feels it is necessary but not sufficient. Aristotle feels Parmenides needs to add a substrate, which would provide a composite for accidental change. The substrate would persist throughout the change. For example, if a dog grew three inches the physical size of the dog has changed, yet the substrate (dog) has remained the same.
Parmenides goes on to say that one cannot think what is not (not-being, or nothingness). For Aristotle this premise holds true, but was created too vaguely. He would like to see Parmenides explain more fully his notion of change taking place between opposites. For example, if “x” had an opposite it would be not “x”. I think Parmenides would not feel the need to defend himself since the premise seems clear enough to him. Parmenides might think that Aristotle’s desire for a more fully developed premise is a matter of subjective opinion. In Parmenides next premise he asserts that if there were change it would take place between opposites. Aristotle is again in partial agreement with this premise, yet again would like to see Parmenides add the substrate.
Parmenides will go on to say that if being had an opposite it would be not-being (or nothingness). By reading this sentence alone it might seem to ma...

The complete article is about 1082 words and 4.33 pages long.

To continue reading the complete article, subscribe below and get free instant unlimited access.

Once you have registered for an Account, No refunds can be issued.
Please make sure you look over the site before you purchase an account!!!