Within this essay, I will challenge Parmenides’ statement that man’s senses deceive our judgement of reality as faulty, since he thinks that thoughts are senseless if not related to a physical object. I believe that if he were to accept an atomist view in that the world is made up of many elements, then his argument would become valid; he does not suggest a clear reason why we are able to think of things that are not existent in the real world. Parmenides’ theory states that something that ‘is’ must exist therefore, it is continuous and indestructible ; it will never come into being or grow into anything else as it has always existed as one entity. Parmenides believes existence can be recognized through thought or reasoning. In Parmenides’ only surviving poem he comes to the conclusion that reality is “one being” by describing an encounter with a Goddess who teaches him the premises of what ‘is’ and what ‘is not’. The Goddess’ revelations highlight three ‘roads of enquiry’ all linked to how we report the world we see. The first road, “what is there to be said and thought must be” suggests this is how we report our thoughts of the world; for example, this grass is green, which we know to be true. Parmenides’ first premise seems understandable because of its simple concept; however, it is the second road that …show more content…
From a modern day point of view, Parmenides’ thesis does not tackle the issue of invention. There is no clear explanation of how we can bring new things in to being, for example birth and death. Parmenides’ would argue that for something to be real there must be a relation between that and something else that is existent. For example, marriage can only occur between two people . This is similar as saying for something to mean anything it has to be connected to something that is significant in the