Existence and Being as a Whole in Interpretations of Parmenides’ Poem

A. Gorev
{"title":"Existence and Being as a Whole in Interpretations of Parmenides’ Poem","authors":"A. Gorev","doi":"10.17212/2075-0862-2023-15.1.1-74-86","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses two main existing options for interpreting the concept of being in Parmenides’ poem. The first option is more traditional: quantitative monism, where existence is the only form of being. The second option is more modern: the predicative monism, where there are many types of being, but each of them is strictly defined by its essence. Both options are illustrated by the example of modern works by M.N. Wol’f, as well as in the example of a new translation by E.V. Afonasin. The close connection of the two variants is shown, almost inextricable, judging by the text of the poem, which allows for various translations. The article discusses the fundamental options for reading the ‘οὖλον’ (dense / whole), ‘µουνογενές’ (only-begotten / homogeneous) and the number of possible commas in the fragment ‘ὁµοῦ πᾶν ἕν συνεχές’, which affects the result of counting the types of being. Based on the work of I.V. Berestov, the article shows that both interpretations have a common basis in the form of the concept of the whole. The whole can be considered both as one, which corresponds to quantitative monism, and as an absolute whole, having many parts, each of which is a separate relative whole: the being, which corresponds to predicative monism. This common ground allows us to consider both interpretations of Parmenides’ concept of being together. The author insists on just such an examination of the poem in order to come to a more definite conclusion about the nature of being. There is no contradictory opposition between these options, which would lead to a contradiction when they are considered together. It is noted that the whole is the one and at the same time indivisible, which does not negate the mandatory presence of its parts, which are separated from each other. Thanks to the concept of the whole, one can see the mutual interweaving of predicative (essential) monism, quantitative (existential) monism, and even, if desired, holistic (substantial) monism. Holistic monism assumes the whole as the only substance underlying the entire universe.","PeriodicalId":336825,"journal":{"name":"Ideas and Ideals","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ideas and Ideals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17212/2075-0862-2023-15.1.1-74-86","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article discusses two main existing options for interpreting the concept of being in Parmenides’ poem. The first option is more traditional: quantitative monism, where existence is the only form of being. The second option is more modern: the predicative monism, where there are many types of being, but each of them is strictly defined by its essence. Both options are illustrated by the example of modern works by M.N. Wol’f, as well as in the example of a new translation by E.V. Afonasin. The close connection of the two variants is shown, almost inextricable, judging by the text of the poem, which allows for various translations. The article discusses the fundamental options for reading the ‘οὖλον’ (dense / whole), ‘µουνογενές’ (only-begotten / homogeneous) and the number of possible commas in the fragment ‘ὁµοῦ πᾶν ἕν συνεχές’, which affects the result of counting the types of being. Based on the work of I.V. Berestov, the article shows that both interpretations have a common basis in the form of the concept of the whole. The whole can be considered both as one, which corresponds to quantitative monism, and as an absolute whole, having many parts, each of which is a separate relative whole: the being, which corresponds to predicative monism. This common ground allows us to consider both interpretations of Parmenides’ concept of being together. The author insists on just such an examination of the poem in order to come to a more definite conclusion about the nature of being. There is no contradictory opposition between these options, which would lead to a contradiction when they are considered together. It is noted that the whole is the one and at the same time indivisible, which does not negate the mandatory presence of its parts, which are separated from each other. Thanks to the concept of the whole, one can see the mutual interweaving of predicative (essential) monism, quantitative (existential) monism, and even, if desired, holistic (substantial) monism. Holistic monism assumes the whole as the only substance underlying the entire universe.
巴门尼德诗歌解读中的存在与整体存在
本文讨论了巴门尼德诗歌中存在概念的两种主要解释。第一种选择更为传统:数量一元论,认为存在是存在的唯一形式。第二种选择是更现代的:谓词一元论,其中有许多类型的存在,但每一种都是由其本质严格定义的。M.N.沃尔夫的现代作品以及E.V.阿福纳辛的新译本都说明了这两种选择。这两种变体的紧密联系,几乎是不可分割的,从诗歌的文本判断,这允许各种翻译。本文讨论了读取“ο ο ο ογεν ν”(密集/整体)、“µο ο ογεν ς”(独生/同质)的基本选项,以及片段“νµο ο π ον ν σ σ ν νεχ ς”中可能出现的逗号数量,这些逗号会影响计算存在类型的结果。本文以别列斯托夫(I.V. Berestov)的工作为基础,指出两种解释都有一个共同的基础,即整体概念的形式。整体既可以被认为是一个整体,与数量一元论相一致,又可以被认为是一个绝对的整体,有许多部分,每一部分都是一个单独的相对整体,即存在,与谓词一元论相一致。这一共同点使我们能够考虑巴门尼德“在一起”概念的两种解释。作者坚持对这首诗进行这样的检查,以便对存在的本质得出更明确的结论。这些选择之间不存在矛盾的对立,如果把它们放在一起考虑,就会产生矛盾。我们注意到,整体是一,同时又是不可分割的,这并不否定它的各部分的强制性存在,各部分彼此分离。由于整体的概念,人们可以看到谓词(本质)一元论,数量(存在)一元论,甚至,如果愿意的话,整体(实质)一元论相互交织。整体一元论认为整体是整个宇宙的唯一基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信