What We Should Learn?

[hazelm]

I found this at Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and latched onto it because it echoes something I have always believed.  Just wanted to share it.  The last line has reams of "sermons" in it but I had better skip that if I know what is good for me.  What I am wondering is what is this "still heart of reality"?  Knowing philosophy and the battle of "what is reality?" and "what is real?", dare I ask?   Parmenides is said to have written something about what reality is but I've not been able to find much more than statements that he did write such.

 

From Parmenides' "Proem"  (what is left of it):

     

…And it is necessary for you to learn all things,

Both the still heart of persuasive reality

And the opinions of mortals, in which there is no genuine reliability.

 

What is reality according to Parmenides?

Edited June 17, 2018 by hazelm

[Moronium]

    

…And it is necessary for you to learn all things,

Both the still heart of persuasive reality

And the opinions of mortals, in which there is no genuine reliability.

 

What is reality according to Parmenides?

 

Parmenides basically said that true "reality" was eternal and unchanging and that any appearance to the contrary was "illusion."  Motion, for instance, was an illusion--nothing ever "really" moves, he cllaimed.  Hence the "still heart."

 

This conclusion, he thought, was the inevitable one to be drawn from pure reason--which would be "persuasive," notwithstanding the extremely deceptive appearances.  Hence "persuasive reality" is contrasted with the (unreliable) "opinions of mortals" (i.e., "illusions").

Edited June 17, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

Parmenides basically said that true "reality" was eternal and unchanging and that any appearance to the contrary was "illusion."  Motion, for instance, was an illusion--nothing ever "really" moves, he cllaimed.  Hence the "still heart."

Hmmmm.  He obviously has not seen I 270.  On the other hand -- at Rush hour.....

 

Thank you for that.  Despite my silliness, I do understand what you are saying.    I do like the writing of those early Greek philosophers.  So easy to follow.

[Moronium]

    I do like the writing of those early Greek philosophers.  So easy to follow.

 

 

Who else are you reading?  Heraclitus (the antithesis of Parmenides)?  Plato?

[hazelm]

Who else are you reading?  Heraclitus (the antithesis of Parmenides)?  Plato?

Both of those, yes.  And others.  I didn't enjoy Plato as much as some others.  I don't know why.  He makes perfectly good sense.  I'll have to think on that.    There aren't too many after 2,000 + years.  They had good depth considering how off their science was.  But it's their philosophy  that I like as philosophy can be dreadfully ponderous.   It got worse over the centuries.  Hume and Kant.  I pick up on once in a while and, within 15 minutes, it's back on my shelf gathering dust.  Keep it simple and people will read it.

 

Must go.