Heraclitus and Parmenides
Empiricist and rationalists, my way of learning is all slow and I need to go back at some point to clarify which of these 2 terms apply to which of these 2.
The manner this lecture series goes is dialectical, iow's in the way of a conversation, the following thinker advances the discussion after each previous thinker.
My notes here leave a lot to be desired, but I hope to get better at it. I really wanna learn this stuff, but I won't explain why for anything, if it's not already evident, it will have to remain a mystery.
All in flux, can't step into the same river twice, I kept thinking the river is still there, it isn't suddenly not there just because it's flowing!! But I let it slide, maybe it's just that specific illustration that trips me up, or is it something I missed, well i'll come back to it, and make note of it here, but I get the funny feeling I'll get like a whole bunch of comments begging me to stop!
Parmenides wanted to go the opposite of Heraclitus and said there's no non-being, you can't think of it, all you think is of things are, only being-thoughts, or something like that, .... those who know this subject probably find this either difficult to read, or hilarious, I hope its the latter!
The manner this lecture series goes is dialectical, iow's in the way of a conversation, the following thinker advances the discussion after each previous thinker.
My notes here leave a lot to be desired, but I hope to get better at it. I really wanna learn this stuff, but I won't explain why for anything, if it's not already evident, it will have to remain a mystery.
All in flux, can't step into the same river twice, I kept thinking the river is still there, it isn't suddenly not there just because it's flowing!! But I let it slide, maybe it's just that specific illustration that trips me up, or is it something I missed, well i'll come back to it, and make note of it here, but I get the funny feeling I'll get like a whole bunch of comments begging me to stop!
Parmenides wanted to go the opposite of Heraclitus and said there's no non-being, you can't think of it, all you think is of things are, only being-thoughts, or something like that, .... those who know this subject probably find this either difficult to read, or hilarious, I hope its the latter!
46-50, M