Why Truth Is Not Had Through Reason

What a piece of work, Plato's Parmenides!  What a call to discern and a challenge to our wisdom!

To give some context, Plato and Parmenides were among the greatest Greek philosophers.  Plato was taught by Socrates who was in turn taught by Parmenides.  Parmenides was an elder in the time of Socrates' youth and if we trust Plato's account they had dealings with each other.  Parmenides was a mentor.

In his own time Parmenides left us a wonderful poem about truth.  Only fragments of it remain but the goal of the poem is quite clear.  It is meant to show us the way of truth.  Parmenides also claims to show us the way of untruth but this part of his work is by and large missing.  As a result it is hard to derive Parmenides' teaching.

Plato's Parmenides is a great resource then because we have it in its entirety.  In the dialogue Plato also has Parmenides make a similar promise to his interlocuters.  To show them the way of truth (and untruth).

He says that the process is long and arduous, but I think if we abstract from the particulars the result is quite clear.  What follows is his method and what I believe is the result:

When showing the way of truth Parmenides first takes a thesis.  Any thesis would do but for Parmenides it is 'being is'.

From this statement Parmenides produces an argument.  He develops an incontrovertible result from the fact that being is.  For example, all is in motion.

He then starts over and does it again, but this time he shows something completely different from the thesis.  For instance, when before he showed from 'being is' that everything is in motion he would then show that everything is still.

In an indisputable way Parmenides shows how the potential truth 'being is' yields confounding results.  He leaves us with the feeling that the statement we thought was true cannot be trusted.

What is more, Parmenides then takes the counter statement 'being is not' and repeats the process!  He shows that this too, when rationally developed, leads only to confusion.

Parmenides ultimately presents us with four fully rational but mutually exclusive arguments that ultimately undermine both that being is and that being is not.  What is shown is not just how little we know but how little we can know through rational discourse.

And that's just it: The truth that glares us in the face once Parmenides is done is not a truth obtained through reason but the truth that reason is not the way of truth.

The way of truth is some other way.  Perhaps the only way that is left once reason is dispelled and discourse ceases.

Thanks be to Job.