Today in class we debated the philosophies of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Since I was on the side of Heraclitus I will be discussing the major points of the Parmenides argument. In response to various examples of changing things in the everyday world, those on Parmenides' responded by saying that the surface of reality may change but the truths stay the same. An example of this is an apple being eaten. An apple is an apple before and after it's eaten even though it may look different. This change is not enough evidence for Parmenides to be convinced that the entire world is in constant flux. Just because the apple is now just a core of an apple, it hasn't changed from being an apple, the higher truth or idea. It is these ideas that are not changed through the passing of time, according to Parmenides. The changing of the seasons is another thing that has been constant throughout time. Though the leaves may fall at slightly different times in the season of Fall, the truth and descriptions of Fall such as colder weather, are met every year. On these ideas of constancy Parmenides bases his theory that the world and reality are represented eternally the same as their main ideas appear to us.
However, both Greek philosophers make great points and are recognized in Hegel's practice of historicism. These philosophies help form Hegel's theory of dialect which is a three step process in which the rational conceptual truths are synthesized by their opposites: 1) Thesis 2) Antithesis 3)Synthesis. Hegel brings about his theory of dialect by studying Plato, Heraclitus, and Parmenides through historicism, or the study and synthesis of previous philosophies. Dialect for Hegel more directly came from Heraclitus' idea of constant change (thesis), followed by Parmenides' idea of permanency in reality (antithesis), then Plato's combination of the two philosophies in his idea of a permanent mental world and a changing physical world (synthesis). In creating this theory of dialect Hegel appears to be anticipating a constant change in rational truths. Could Hegel be referring to his own philosophy too? Is Hegel both clairvoyant and humble enough to say that an antithesis will eventually arise to oppose his philosophy and thus create a resulting synthesis that has higher truth than his own?
I think in this example, the antithesis of Hegel's philosophies would be Marxism, at least according to Lavine (with the synthesis possibly being Sartre?). I don't think that Hegel is being clairvoyant in this example, though, as it is merely part of his theory, so it would be illogical and contradictory for him to assume otherwise. Great post!
ReplyDelete