/lit/ - Literature

>>20072017
What the fuck was Parmenides' problem?

>>20024333

What did he mean by this?

>>19452603
Being is.

>>19445372
Plato has Parmenides refute himself.

>>19431273
Being is.

What do I need to read before I can begin to comprehend this? No other dialogue has stumped me this hard.

Ok, I admit I was filtered. Republic was way easier to understand.

Why do people act as if Hegel was the first philosopher to embrace contradiction?

Just posting the greatest work of philosophy and literature ever written.

>Let this therefore be said, and let us also say the following, as it seems appropriate. Whether or not there is a unity, the unity itself and the manifold otherness, both in relation to themselves as well as to each other—all this, in every way, both is and is not, appears [phainetai] and does not appear. —This is most true [alēthestata].

εἰρήσθω τοίνυν τοῦτό τε καὶ ὅτι, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἓν εἴτ᾽ ἔστιν εἴτε μὴ ἔστιν, αὐτό τε καὶ τἆλλα καὶ πρὸς αὑτὰ καὶ πρὸς ἄλληλα πάντα πάντως ἐστί τε καὶ οὐκ ἔστι καὶ φαίνεταί τε καὶ οὐ φαίνεται. —ἀληθέστατα.

>>17832640
>btfos you

>Reality is both One and Many, limited and unlimited, at rest and in motion, the same as itself and different to itself, and the simultaneous negation of all of these. Everywhere, nowhere.

But how is this meaningful for our human experience?

Imagine misunderstanding and then not trying to understand the most profound work of philosophy ever written.

Wow, he literally went beyond metaphysics.

>people still prefer Parmenides to Plato after this

>>16403444
>Don't read Heidegger, read this instead.

>>16386585

Can even Being and Time compete?

>"The third passage of the Parmenides is the most profound point to which Occidental metaphysics has ever advanced. It is the most radical advance into the problem of Being and time—an advance which afterwards was not caught up with [aufgefangen] but instead intercepted [abgefangen] (by Aristotle)
Though he is by far exaggerating here, the point remains. And here by Karl Jaspers in a letter to Heidegger:
> If the second half of his [Plato’s] Parmenides would be performed anew with today’s methods (and not Neoplatonically), then all bad metaphysics would be overcome, and the space would be open for a pure hearing of the language of Being.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY0BRQbpIe0

I will not say anything more, only give you a taste and those who have read it and known shall understand.

Are there any particular dialogues that should be read before starting Parmenides?