Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A Fourth Alternative in Interpreting Parmenides.John E. Sisko & Yale Weiss - 2015 - Phronesis 60 (1):40-59.
    According to current interpretations of Parmenides, he either embraces a token-monism of things, or a type-monism of the nature of each kind of thing, or a generous monism, accepting a token-monism of things of a specific type, necessary being. These interpretations share a common flaw: they fail to secure commensurability between Parmenides’ alētheia and doxa. We effect this by arguing that Parmenides champions a metaphysically refined form of material monism, a type-monism of things; that light and night are allomorphs of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Parmenides on ‘naming’ and ‘meaning’: a disjunctivist reading of the Poem.Erminia Di Iulio - 2021 - Philosophy 96 (2):205-227.
    A well-established tradition has argued that it is not legitimate to attribute to Parmenides a Fregean semantics, i.e. the distinction between ‘naming’ and ‘meaning’. Nonetheless, Parmenides claims more than once (B 8.53, B 9.1) that mortalsdo namereality, although incorrectly. As many scholars have emphasised, because it is fair neither to conclude that mortals’ names are ‘empty names’ nor dismiss Opinion's account (i.e., broadly speaking, the mortals’ account of reality) itself as meaningless, it seems that Parmenides is suggesting that some kind (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Parmenides' Theistic Metaphysics.Jeremy C. DeLong - 2016 - Dissertation, University of Kansas
    The primary interpretative challenge for understanding Parmenides’ poem revolves around explaining both the meaning of, and the relationship between, its two primary sections: a) the positively endorsed metaphysical arguments which describe some unified, unchanging, motionless, and eternal “reality”, and b) the ensuing cosmology, which incorporates the very principles explicitly denied in Aletheia. I will refer to this problem as the “A-D Paradox.” I advocate resolving this paradoxical relationship by reading Parmenides’ poem as a ring-composition, and incorporating a modified version of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • La logique de l’eoikos et ses transformations : Xénophane, Parménide, Platon.Maria Michela Sassi - 2013 - Philosophie Antique 13:13-35.
    L’adjectif eoikos apparaît dans trois passages cruciaux de la pensée grecque (Xénophane, fr. B35 ; Parménide, fr. B8, 60 ; Platon, Timée, 29b3-c3), caractérisant une certaine « ressemblance » à la vérité qui se veut constitutive du discours du savant. En fait, le long de cet examen on découvre que les trois usages du terme ne peuvent pas être disposés le long d’une ligne continue, vu la difficulté de comprendre à quelle notion de vérité, sous quel point de vue, et (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations