{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Evaluation of the argumen2

Evaluation of the argumen2 - Evaluation of the argument It...

Info icon This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Evaluation of the argument It is clearly a formally valid argument. But is it sound? The first premise seems plausible: how could a thing exist if it is not even possible to speak or think about it? And how could one speak or think about something that could not even possibly exist? But what of the second premise [(5) in our reconstruction of Parmenides’ argument]? It seems false to say that only what actually , in fact, exists could possibly exist. Why should Parmenides believe this? a. Barnes ( Presocratics , p. 167) suggests the following: “What doesn’t exist can’t exist” is ambiguous. It might mean either of the following (which are not equivalent): i. It is not possible that what does not exist exists. 2200 x ¬ ( Ex & ¬ Ex ) i.e., for any object, necessarily, if it doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist. 2200 x Ex ¬ Ex ) [‘ ’ means ‘it is necessary that’.] ii. If a thing does not exist, then it is not possible for it to exist.
Image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}