bicknell parmenides refutation of motion and an implication
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Bicknell Parmenides Refutation of Motion and an Implication
1/6
Parmenides' Refutation of Motion and an Implication
Author(s): P. J. BicknellSource: Phronesis, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1967), pp. 1-5Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4181789.
Accessed: 30/09/2014 15:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
BRILLis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 169.226.152.238 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:54:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4181789?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4181789?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap -
8/9/2019 Bicknell Parmenides Refutation of Motion and an Implication
2/6
Parmenides'efutation
of Motionand an Implication
P. J. BICK
NELL
A
It
is
commonly
maintained that Melissus
was
the
major
forerunner
of
atomism.
This
has been
argued
on a
number
of
grounds,
one
of
these
being
that
Leucippus
reacted to
a
Melissean
rather than
a
Parmenidean refutation of locomotion. In the following short paper I
shall challenge
this view and
point
out that
not
only
is one other
argument
for Melissus'
influence
on
atomism
insecure,
but that Theo-
phrastus,
our
most
important
witness, unequivocally
states that
Leucippus
opposed
a
pre-Melissean
eleaticism.
Discussion
is
preceded by quotation
of
the two relevant
texts.
B.
Parmenides DK.28.B.8.
26. oair(p
CxLvJy7ov
yckxwv ?V
TitlpocaL
e?cv
e(TaLV
aVMpXOV
&rwaMGTov,
e7re
tyeVet
XcOct
6)?SOpoC
TiX
4McX' eTrXxXO7)aV,
oCTaCC
8a
7tratLq
a-0'1
TGUwov
r
v
TOUTC&
E
,U'vov
xOQ'
LxuT6
T
-
XL
30.
XoU'trW;
urcsaov
tOML
l?,vs
xparepn yap
'Avcayxn
7CELporro;
eV
8aeaLoaLtv
9
Ce,
O
[LLV
Oap4
L
?c pyCeL,
o(vxEv
OUx
&X?7X
0-qOv
?r6 0V Oe?C
eZLvOL
33.
Ca'n
yxp oux
ent8eu?4
[
n
EOV
8
&v
7MvTO;
8ez
ro
a.
scanned 'CL8aelt.
ent8s?'
of
some manuscripts
is also possible.
b.
p.'
appears
in
all
manuscripts at
both
Simplicius
Phys. 30.10 and
40.6.
It has
generally
been
expelled.
Melissus DK.30.B.7.7.
O'8a
XeVe'V
'aTt
OU8V- -0
yap xevC?V Ou8?V
CrL oUX
&V
ObV t
-
T6
yE
[I'J8eV.
OV8? LVELtzL
U0ox pCa
yap OUx)K
ou/ao , cxv
atv.
Et p&Vy&p XeVeOV V, u'7reX)PCL&V 4g T0 XeVOV' XeVO5
8?
v
EOVTO4 ox
9XCL
6Xnf
U'pY
a5eL.
1
This content downloaded from 169.226.152.238 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:54:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/9/2019 Bicknell Parmenides Refutation of Motion and an Implication
3/6
C.
In a fairly recent article G. S. Kirk and Michael C. Stokes jointly
maintained'
that
Parmenides rejected
local motion
on
ontological
grounds alone.
The
main
support
for
this
view was
derived from
fragment
8 lines 26-30.
The
co-authors
took it that lines
29 and
30
guaranteed
that
CXLvTqov
n
line
26 covered locomotion as well as
'starting and
stopping'.
In
their
view,
the
invalidity
of
both
species
of motion
is
deduced
from
Parmenides' previously
argued2
interdiction
of coming-to-be
and passing-away.
Motion is
a
kind
of
change, and
all
change involves
these illegitimate
concepts.
For Kirk (although not for Stokes)3 an important consequence of
this
is
that
Parmenides did not employ
the
physical
argument
against
motion
based upon the
impossibility
of void; this argument
was
added
by
Melissus (fragment
7.7). In
Kirk's view this
affords further
support
for
the
fairly common
view4
that
Melissus
was
the
true
precursor
of
the
atomic
theory of Leucippus.
Leucippus,
he argues,
reacted
to an
argument
against
motion put
forward
not
by
Parmenides but
by
Melissus.
I
believe
that the interpretation
placed upon
the
Parmenidean lines,
and therefore the deduction about Melissus and atomism which is
based
on it are false.
Lines 26-33 do
not, surely,
contain
an
omnibus
ontological disproof
of
two
varieties
of
motion,
followed
by
an
argument
concerned only
with the limitedness
of so owv,
s
Kirk
would
presumably
maintain, but
two arguments
each concerned
with
a different type
of
motion.
Lines 26-28
reject alteration,
or passing
from one
quality
to
another, which
certainly does
fall within genesis
and
phthora,
while
lines
29-33 constitute
an entirely separate
disproof
of locomotion.
This
is confirmed
by fragment 8 lines
36-41, which
sum up
the results
of
I
G. S.
Kirk and Michael C. Stokes,
'Parmenides' Refutation of Motion',
Phronesis
5
(1960)
pp.
1-4.
2
DK.28.B.8.
5ff.
3
Kirk and
Stokes, op.
cit., p. 4 note 4.
4
For Melissean
influence on atomism
see most recently D.
McKibbon,
'Melissus
and the Atomists', Mnemosyne
17 (1964)
pp. 248-255. For
an explicitly contrary
view, see H. Diller,
'Die Philosophiegeschichtliche
Stellung
des
Diogenes
von
Apollonia',
Hermes 76 (1941) pp.
359-381. The importance
of
early
Eleaticism
for atomism
is implicit in K. von Fritz,
Philosophie und Sprachlicher
Ausdruck
bei Demokrit,
Platon und Aristoteles,
New York, Stechert,
1938.
C.
Mugler's
('L'isonomie
des atomistes'
R. Ph. 30 (1956)
pp. 231-50) emphasis
on the
atomistic invocation (Simplicius
Phys.
28.10 and 25) of
Parmenides' 'Principe
d'indifference'
(DK.28.B.8.9-10; 22ff.;
44ff.) has similar implications.
2
This content downloaded from 169.226.152.238 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:54:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/9/2019 Bicknell Parmenides Refutation of Motion and an Implication
4/6
the
way
of Truth
so far. According to line 41 it has been
proved both
that change of bright colour is impossible (the most conspicuous
example
of
qualitative change) and that
change of position
cannot
occur. If lines 26-28 were
an
ontological disproof
of locomotion as
well
as
alteration,
so that lines 29-33 constituted
an
argument
in its
own
right for the peiras of what
is,
rather than a
sub-proof,
then
the
summary must
surely
have
included
a
reference to
the
proof
of
peiras,
as to all
the
other
proofs.
The fact is
that until line
33
Parmenides
is
concerned
purely
with
denying
certain attributes
to
what-is,
that
is
with
a
negative part
of the
way
of Truth.
Peiras
and
its
implications
are only dealt on their own account in the constructive, positive part
of
the
way
of Truth
(fragment
8
lines
42-49)
which
is
only commenced
when
the
negative
part
has
been
carefully
summarised.
The argument
of
lines 29-33 can be
paraphrased
as
follows. What-is
could
only change
its
position
if
there were
vacancies
into which
it
could
move.
If, however, there were
such
vacancies
then
what-is
would
be
incomplete.
But
what-is
could
not
be
incomplete
for
if it
were
then
it
would
fall
short of
completenessby
what
is
not
(literally,
'what is
not
would be lacking from
the whole'),
and what is not
is
inconceivable and unutterable.
Simplicius
(Phys.
40.7-9)
constructed
the
last
line
somewhat
differently
and
paraphrased
as
follows:
;
yap
To
tq%
v,
cynatv,
va
7nThv
?cv,
O1
GT)
rO
OV
av6v8Md
xoc t
'rXeLOV. rG%8
XLVOU)LeVOV
CVaeiq
eXeLVOU
8at
O XltVeOC
*
L
O'CppX
v
V xwveZrat.
Ultimately both
explanations
come to
the
same. What
is
most
important
is
that
Simplicius
(40.3)5
recognised,
as
did Plato
before
him
(Theait.
180e3-4) that
fragment
8
lines
29-33 constituted
a
disproof of
locomotion and that Par-
menides'
argument
amounted to
the same
as that of
Melissus. As
Simplicius puts it
(40.9-15) xcd
M?Laaoq
E
&xtv1ov
oC6
&bL8eCEe
xoaEr rv
orr
IV
n&?
tav
ot)
eLv,
rL
XtVOLTO
o'0 6V,
SIVoL
rL
XeV69
TO5 6VTO
to 'C
UO7tOXYWP
'aeL T'0
0V
X
V0V
ae
npoxnkoet;
FIT'
VOL.
?1yCL 8e
oUiE)w; ?v
TXo
piavrow
yypMorL
;
he
then
proceeds to
quote Melissus'
words.
Although, then,
Parmenides,
unlike
Melissus, does not use
the term
xevOv,
his
interdiction
of
locomotion is
hardly less
'physical' than
that
by
Melissus.
This
realised,
it
no
longer
necessarily follows
that
we
must
regard
Leucippus' restitution of
motion as
defiance of
Melissus.
5
His preoccupation at Phys. 30. 5ff. with the introduction by Parmenides of
the
idea of
peiras
does not of
course mean
that
at
this
point
Simplicius
failed
to
realise that
the peiras
argument is
only part
of
the disproof
of
locomotion.
3
This content downloaded from 169.226.152.238 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:54:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/9/2019 Bicknell Parmenides Refutation of Motion and an Implication
5/6
In fact,
I
believe
that
the view of
Melissus
as
atomistic
precursor par
excellence requires urgent reappraisal. Theophrastus, it must be re-
called, most
clearly
and
unequivocally
connected
Leucippus with Par-
menides himself.
The
crucial passage
is
the following:
Simplicius
Phys.
28.4ff
(a
virtual
transcript
of
Theophrastus,
either
direct or
through
Alexander
of
Aphrodisias):
Aei)XL7TCTOq
?
6
'EXe4
i
M&X'cnoq
&
ot6po)
y&p xys-
tp.
(cU-oi5) oLvOv'aGOC
floppsvLta-8
xs
YLoaGOpLocq,
o'u -rv
oci)-xv &Lcatae
ROppLeVfa- ZOL 1'=VOYO'VeL
7Cept T&V O'V'r(OV
O8OV) X
OXLT VcVlTolMV.
pivL~
xo
sopvr
iv0-o
68v,&?
coq
aoxez
'rv
~ovro
exeLov
yoxp
eV
xOCL&xLVTnTOVXOCL
&y6v-yTov xoci 7CS?pSOCC VOQV TCOLOUVrCOV
tO 7raV,
XOCL To
Vn
OV
pLYae\
(eYCWV
C
@pOU VT@V
OUTo4
O C7CS&OC
OaL
OeL
ZLVO
)evoc
U to
? oca
asos...
Not
only
does
Theophrastus
emphasize personal6
contact between Parmenides
and an
Eleate
Leucippus,
he states that
Leucippus responded
to an
Eleatic who
held that
ro-
nFv
was
nwenpaa0tievov
not
aS
pOV as
Melissus
proposed.7
The only
ancient
witness,
in
fact,
to
any sort
of
connection
between
Leucippus and Melissus
is
Tzetzes8
who,
even
if
he did
not
contradict
Theophrastus,
could
hardly
be
regarded
as
trustworthy.
If
Melissean influence
on
atomism
is
to be
maintained in the teeth
of
Theophrastus'
implications
it must
obviously
be
supported by
far
more
cogent arguments
than that
proposed
by
Kirk.
The
favourite
passage cited
in
support
of it
is Melissus
fragment
8,9
which
is
supposed
to
foreshadow
an
atomistic
plurality
of Eleatic
ones.
Even
here the
deduction
seems
far
from
obvious. Melissus
argues
that if
the com-
ponents
of the
phenomenal world,
air, fire,
iron
and
gold,
and
so
forth,
were
real,
they
each
of
them
must be of
the same
kind that he
maintains
the one to
be,
that
is
immutable.
However,
we
perceive
that each
of
these constituents
is
subject
to alteration
and
disintegration,
so
that
it
is
apparent that we neither see nor
know
realities. It
is
not easy to
see
how
this
conception
of
a
domain
composed
of a
contiguous
multiplicity
of
sensible
but
immutable constituents
like, air, fire, gold
etc. could
6
When
no personal contact is
involved, Theophrastus employs a
different
construction. Note Simplicius
Phys. 27. 2-3
(again from Theophrastus);
Avococy6pocq...
otvco,v-amc
ic
'Avocai'vouq
cptXoao(pLcc4;
nd see J. Burnet, Early
Greek
Philosophy 4,
Macmillan
1930, p. 332, note
2.
7
DK.30.B.1.
and
B.2.
8
Tzetzes Chil. 2-980 (at DK. 6.7.A.5.).
9
See,
for
example, Kirk-Raven,
The
Presocratic
Philosophers, Cambridge 1957,
pp.
304-6.
4
This content downloaded from 169.226.152.238 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:54:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/9/2019 Bicknell Parmenides Refutation of Motion and an Implication
6/6
have suggested the atomists'
plurality
of
separated,
sub-visible,
homogeneous corpuscles.
To return to motion and the void, it
seems to me most likely that
Leucippus in replying to
Parmenides
made explicit To
xevov
implicit
in Parmenides' gaps
of what is not in what
is and
that Melissus
attempted to refute
Leucippus using atomism's
own physical
terminology.10
Monash University
10
Finally,
I
wish to record
my gratitude to
Mr.
D. J. Furley
for
a
crucial
suggestion and
for
criticism
of some of
the
material in an earlier draft.
5
This content downloaded from 169.226.152.238 on Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:54:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp