This is what I hope to have done over the years for some onlooker
Depends on your tastes I suppose, and whether you were in the cathedral when that happened ahahaha!
This is one of my favorite statements from our founders
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
Really meaningful idea to me.
There are different levels of discourse and I rarely discuss philosophy proper. It’s a symptom of our viscerally imperfect political order. I see philosophy and math as a greedy activity given our political conditions. Once those are corrected THEN people can guiltlessly partake in these nobler activities of the mind. “Navel-gazing” is a good thing actually, there are just so many problems that need to be solved in the current time that navel-gazing is self-centered. Still I emphasize that this rangordnung of discourse exists. To forego philosophy proper and engage in political philosophy instead is to decide to be an object. It’s a type of toil that is dirty and is not fit for purer souls. Ideally those who partake in the latter are preparing the way for people to not have to do it anymore.
Here is something humbling. A student of Heidegger was walking around the forest with him in the mid-40s
After posing, with restrained passion, a number of apt, exact questions, which I did not evade, he stood still and said, “I must say one thing to you: the structure of Platonic thinking is completely unclear to me.”
If HE admitted that then virtually everyone alive today would have to admit the same.
In a letter to him a few years later Jaspers says this is what performing the Parmenides dialogue anew in the present would do
the space would be open for a pure hearing of the language of Being.
From my studies there tends to be a consensus among scholars that it is Plato’s most difficult dialogue – and I’ve detailed some characteristics of it already here.
Heidegger has an abnormal conception of the history of philosophy- usually it starts with Plato. For him though he’s “the first end of the first beginning” where the so-called pre-Socratics are that first beginning, Parmenides being one of the most prominent pre-Socratics. Given that Plato did not write a dialogue titled Heraclitus one might infer he considered Parmenides thee main precursor of Socrates. For Heidegger philosophy begins with the pre-Socratics and ends with a few of the Germans that preceded him, Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche. And Heidegger was trying to create his own new beginning after them. Or more precisely, similar to what I said above, he was trying to prepare the way for people in the future to create a new beginning.
Usually when you think of Neoplatonism you think of the doctrine of the One. Thus Neoplatonism might as well be known as Neoparmenideanism, because that’s what Parmenides’ thought revolves around, the idea that reality is One. And for this reason I believe he, and Plato’s dialogue involving him, should be of particular interest to leftists given that their central (and always unstated) presupposition is the Oneness of Being. Do you know why you believe what you believe? The reason it’s a “dialogue” is because it’s not manifestly obvious that Oneness is the truth, i.e. this postulation is able to be put into question, discussed. Do you really want to be a hippie and claim “humanity is one” without being able to explain yourself? I bet you can’t! And you’ll continue to believe it anyway. Studying the Parmenides though is a way to clarify your thoughts and words about it.
One of the ways this debate is classically stated is as the One and the Many, the One vs. the Many. At first glance you might think this is just some pedantic nerd subject. No, how about we talk about this idea of the “Many” species of humanity… In that light I’m not so sure about this thesis of yours regarding “the Oneness of Being”. “It’s not a thesis, it’s a fact!” You know this is one of the most perplexing documents in the history of earth, right? So don’t be so certain. This can obviously be interpreted through a feminist framework too, though you won’t see THAT in any scholarly works on the Parmenides. Can you guess why that is? It’s because it’s been DECIDED that Being is One. That’s the very foundation of our political order. See? I can’t go one hour not bringing up the filth known as politics. That’s because if we continue with this Oneness doctrine society will fall into irremediable chaos. “Shut up, you traumatize me with this One vs. Many debate.”
In this light, it isn’t only Neoplatonism that is more precisely Neoparmenideanism- CHRISTIANITY is Parmenideanism! Our current secular offshoot of Christianity, is Parmenideanism. Why is it so taboo to doubt the One? Isn’t it disproven through the very existence of cringe? How could I hate to hear the words of low-caste vulgarians if the Many were not the truth? I think that you’re confused, I don’t think the ~One~ exists. Dude, zoom out. It’s a DIALOGUE. That means from the very beginning there’s more than “one” person talking. “All my dreams are crumbling, and I feel myself floating off into a void.”
It doesn’t matter, progs will permit no nuance, to them it’s Oneness with no subtleties
What Socrates would like to know, and what he sees as a most demanding task to demonstrate, is whether or not there is an essential and radical connection between the One and the Many—whether oneness as such presupposes plurality and vice versa.
They believe in a diversity of souls that are all One and the same. Why do I tend to see fully grown women as my little sister then? “So no head?” No, no head. We’ve already established that anyone who questions the sacred One will not be treated very kindly. Hey, I’m just trying to talk about a 2,400 year old papyrus with some scribblings on it, what’s the problem?
See, it says right there you need to bake me a roast
Anyway, we haven’t even gotten into the cerebral sides of this dialogue yet. I just wanted to demonstrate to you that the central presupposition of the left is up in the air, and only has solidity in their own unreflective minds.
Here is the best lecture on this dialogue I know of if you’re more of a “hearing learner”. If nothing else, leftists can have more sophisticated discussions if they study this type of material. If they were more sophisticated maybe I’d start seeing the Oneness between me and them.