A Comparison of Parmenides and Plato

writes author Sotiris Glykofridis

  

The fact that Plato considered Parmenides his 'spiritual father', and is described as his latter-day disciple and, thus, his successor obliges us to make a comparative investigation of the connections and the differences between the theories of Parmenides and of Plato.

Since, also, experiences and wishes also play their part in the shaping of the more general approach, we are obliged to take these into consideration as well.

It must also be stressed that the differences that exist, wherever they tend, in no way affect the value of the philosopher. Thus the comparative investigation of the two thinkers which is attempted has as its purpose only to contribute to an understanding of both.

Parmenides and Plato, who are separated by a period of about 100 years, were both descended from leading families. Plato came from the family of Codrus, the last king of Athens, who sacrificed himself for his city. He was a descendant of Solon and Pisistratus, of the tribe of the Philaids, a family which had demonstrated by its deeds that it did not care for money, but only for the well-being of the city. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know his family tree, but he too came from a noble family.

The first practical difference between the two lies in the fact that Parmenides was a king, while Plato wanted to be one, in the sense that the former had his own state, whereas the latter wished to acquire one. And he exerted all his powers to achieve this, from Athens to Sicily, but without success.

Plato regarded Parmenides, in effect, as his teacher, while Socrates was his 'flag', his emblem,
and he made him a symbol by saying to the Athenians: "This is what you've done with your democracy; you've killed its best man". The fact that when Socrates was sentenced to death, Plato was still young, and would not have had time to get to know him well militates in favour of this: he was in his soul the teacher of his childhood, whereas it was Parmenides whom he studied.

As to the youth of Parmenides, we are told that he studied under capable teachers, perhaps the best, and the knowledge which he possessed suggests that he was an outstanding pupil, which Plato was not. We know that Plato was expelled from the schools where he studied because he publicised his conclusions at an early stage, without completing them, in devising theories. It is a known fact that the characteristics of being fanciful and a plagiarist were ascribed to him. As in philosophy there is no parthenogenesis, the latter is not discreditable, nor, in the last analysis, is being fanciful, but that he was in too much of a hurry is certainly not in his favour.

The teaching of Plato bristles with features taken from Parmenides, which, however, have a different shade of meaning from that which Parmenides gave them. But let us examine a few of these.

1. The allegory of the chariot

In the case of the chariot of Parmenides, the number of the horses is unknown; they are alike among themselves, and they have wisdom and knowledge, so they know where they are going. The charioteers are the unveiled daughters of the Sun, and the observer is man. A leading role here is played by empathy.

In the case of the chariot of Plato, there are two horses, unlike one another: one white, with its tendency a heavenly instinct, a higher desire to ascend, and the other black, its tendency an earthly, impulsive, lower desire to descend. They are driven by man, and there is no passenger. A leading role here is played by reason.

The skill of the charioteer, which in Parmenides is bewitchment, in Plato is seen as art. Parmenides is borne towards knowledge, showing that it already exists within us, whereas Plato is following his own direction, showing that knowledge is acquired.

2. Light - The allegory of the cave

Light as truth and knowledge is, according to Parmenides, granted to humanity in a way that is allotted through a dispersal, like the rainbow, broken down into colours and shades.

The corresponding light in Plato cannot be looked upon by man. It is represented as blinding. What he sees is a secondary light, from fire. He can thus be seen to be, in his position on knowledge, a metaphysician.

Man, again, according to Plato, can be likened to being in a cave, chained, with his back towards the entrance, looking at a world which is projected as shadows by means of the light of a fire, since the sun does not reach the place.

In Parmenides, on the other hand, there is no cave, or chains (which we see again after Plato, in Aristotle). Contrasted with the truth of the colours of Parmenides is the world of shadows of Plato; contrasted with the dispersed light is his black-and-white version. Truth, according to the Eleatic philosopher, lies in the reality here and can be seen; Truth, according to the Athenian, is outside this reality, and when it is seen, blinds. Plato is dealing with the evolution of the soul, which is in chains. Parmenides feels free, and deals with knowledge.

3. On thought and knowledge

Thought according to Parmenides is an object of belief and a subject of empathy. Reasoning plays a role in understanding. The mistakes in man's perception are defined as being reproduced from the past, by dualism. In his beliefs he is a humanist and holistic monist.

Thought according to Plato is a subject of effort and an object of understanding. He puts reasoning in a secondary position. It does not intrude upon the erroneous basis of men's judgement. In his beliefs he is eclectic, and a meritocratic dualist.

4. On 'is' and 'is not'

'Being' and 'not being' are defined by Parmenides as two sides of the same coin, both included in the ontology of 'being'.

Plato calls this into question, and since he believes that the world is metaphysical, the result is that 'not being' sweeps away 'being', and, through it, 'that which is', into the world of the 'beyond', into metaphysicality.

Thus, the true world according to Plato, through 'being and not being' is located where 'that which is' is to be found, in the world of perfect ideas, whereas according to Parmenides, the true world is where 'that which is' lies, 'within us'. Their approaches are, therefore, worlds apart.

Plato's Parmenides

In his work Parmenides, Plato, in undertaking a critical analysis of the Eleatic thinker, finds himself completely at sea, and turns his work into one of the least intelligible texts in philosophy. What he really means, what his position is no one can comprehend. Consequently, to judge Plato by this work, one cannot help but think that at least two of the descriptions applied to him - that he was 'hasty' and 'fanciful' - are perhaps not totally groundless.

The question which thus suggests itself is whether Plato really understood Parmenides, or whether he deliberately distorted him. If one does not choose the former judgement, but the latter, it is to be concluded that if he understood him, he cannot be reckoned a Parmenidian; but if he did not understand him, then certainly he was not.

Other differences

Parmenides considers man innately good, that life alone is the good, and that evil is the lack of the good. Plato, on the other hand, is distrustful of man, and thinks that goodness is acquired, a matter of choice and education.

Parmenides created the concept of the supreme spiritual being. Plato introduced from the being the supreme spiritual idea.

And finally, something which is not definitive, but adds a light touch to the landscape: Parmenides wrote one work of which, by the greatest of efforts, about three-quarters have been preserved, whereas Plato wrote 36 works, of which, without any particular effort, some 42 (!) have survived.

Summary

How far is philosophy the master of philosophy? This inexorable question which bothers the philosopher within himself depends upon language and thinking. Is philosophy master of its own house, of does it live in a house which is a modern cave, shaped by its own compulsiveness?

The monism of Parmenides, which was turned into dualism by Plato and moulded into polyism by Aristotle, who again chose the link with which man was to be bound in chains, seems like Laocöon's silent cry.

Loacöon, of Ilium, having revealed the truth, looks with heartbreak upon his fellow-men, drawing out the most worthy of the snakes which emerged and strangled him from the sea of knowledge.

========================================================
"O σιωπών δοκεί συναινείν"