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 (...) of distinction between what names refer to and what names mean must be drawn. In view of this, what is Parmenides’ account of names?My suggestion is that in order to explain the Eleatic philosophy of language (and the Eleatic account of names) a step back is required. More specifically, Parmenides’ epistemology has to be taken into account. Indeed, if we assume that Parmenides is arguing for an ‘epistemological disjunctivism’ – such that the veridical and truthful state and the erroneous and deceptive state are essentially different – it will be clear that he is further arguing for what could be defined as a ‘semantic disjunctivism’, so that true speech and false speech are essentially different as well. (shrink)

Resumo Lida sem atenção, a avaliação do Poema de Parmênides por Nietzsche corre o risco de frustrar, mais do que estimular, os leitores não-iniciados em Filosofia. Pois, nela o filósofo não só ignora a pesquisa sua contemporânea sobre o Eleata, como insere o seu pensamento numa polêmica antiracionalista, recheada de equívocos e intuições infundadas. É nosso objetivo aqui tentar restituir credibilidade a esta avaliação, apontando as linhas que orientam o diálogo do crítico com o seu objeto tanto para o senso-comum, (...) como para o seu próprio pensamento.Carelessly read, Nietzsche’s evaluation of Parmenides frustrates rather than stimulates non-initiate readers in Philosophy. For the German philosopher ignores any current research on the Eleatic thinker, inserting his arguments in an anti-rationalist polemic, mostly based on unfounded intuitions. We aim at establishing the credibility of Nietzsche’s criticism on the grounds of common sense and of his own heraclitean influenced philosophy. (shrink)

Aristotle claims that Empedocles took perception and knowledge to be the same; Theophrastus follows Aristotle. The paper begins by examining why Aristotle and Theophrastus identify thought/knowing with perception in Empedocles. I maintain that the extant fragments do not support the assertion that Empedocles identifies or conflates sensation with thought or cognition. Indeed, the evidence of the texts shows that Empedocles is careful to distinguish them, and argues that to have genuine understanding one must not be misled into supposing that sense (...) perception is sufficient for knowledge. Nevertheless, sense perception is necessary for human knowing. (shrink)