Parmenides's Objection Of The Characteristics Of Non-Being

Objection 1: I, Parmenides, state that there is no such thing as change. If change did exist, then the characteristics of being would be incorrect, which they are not. The characteristics of being are it can neither come to be or pass away, unchanging, unmoving, unlimited and one. If a being did change, then this would also go against the idea of being can neither come to be nor pass away. With change, the being would be becoming something else, which therefore would lead to the one being passing away and a new being coming to be, and this simply is impossible. Something cannot come nothing, but if it came from something that already was being, then itself is a contradiction because that thing already exists and is not changing. Rationale:

It is impossible for being to change into nothing because the idea of non-being is nonsense. By being I mean what truly is, and by non-being what cannot be. The whole idea of non-being cannot even be thought of because there is no property or characteristics about it and since it cannot even be thought of, the idea of it is false. Being is always true, which means un-being is always false, therefore there can be no such thing as change. Something cannot change into something else, which was previously stated in Objection 1, due to the fact that being does not pass away or come to be. The idea of this goes against the requirements of being and is therefore

He fully relied on the idea of the way of reason to account for being and since the way of reason could not explain if change could occur, then Parmenides believed it was false or unreal. Since the way of reason was founded of reason, he believed that to be true, instead of the senses or experience, which was unreliable: “Parmenides warns against what he calls the “belief of mortals”, based entirely on sense-experience; in these, the goddess says “there is no trust.” Rather, one must judge by understanding” (Curd,