. When I see a bird flying, I am generally thinking of a bird flying. But according to Parmenides, the bird cannot exist because our senses are deceptive. This creates a paradox in Parmenides argument. Since Parmenides does not specify how exactly our senses deceive us or how that deception separates itself from the Truth, Im left to assume that all thought derived from the senses must correspond to reality. In fact, it would be unreasonable to assume that any thought could be had without the senses.Also, Parmenides rules out the notion of change and motion (among other things), writing them off as misperceptions. However, it seems problematic that Parmenides can refute the existence of change or motion when these concepts exist for him to refute in the first place. In other words, if you speak or think of a concept, the concept must correlate with something that actually exists otherwise the word or thought for the concept would not exist. Both thoughts and words require matter with which they correlate otherwise they would be gibberish. Therefore the concepts that Parmenides writes off as misperceptions must necessarily exist, since they exist as thoughts.Parmenides presents an interesting theory concerning the meta-theoretical issue of what can be legitimately thought and said. Initially, his theory seems to be logically sound based on the premises presented. However, upon closer analysis, the theory weakens due to flawed reasoning. Parmenides attempts to refute the existence of certain concepts when, according to his theory, those concepts must necessarily exist. Also, Parmenides writes off the senses as deceptive, but no thoughts could be had without the senses, thus creating a paradox. Since Parmenides presents both sound logic and flawed reasoning, his argument can only be partly right....
