eir senses also believe that reality is plural, changing, temporal, and material. These are illusions. Instead, reality is one, immutable, eternal, and immaterial. This will be understood if man “. . . judge[s] be reason,” (Fr. 7, ln 5). Reason is the way of truth because when man “. . .gaze[s] upon things which although absent are securely present in thought… [man] will not cut off what is from clinging to what is, neither being scattered everywhere in every way in order nor being brought together, (Fr. 4). In other words, only through the thought of something can the being or existence of it be understood. This is what Parmenides means when he says, “for the same thing is for thinking and for being,” (Fr. 3). By concluding that thought is being and thinking is thought (Fr. 8, ln 34), then being is intelligibility. Therefore, something that is capable to be thought is thought, i.e. known, and that which is unintelligible is nonsense. Thus, “is” is all there is and “is not” does not exist. Parmenides wants to conclude that thought is a necessary and sufficient condition of being. In doing so, the way of truth denies plurality. For instance, in the statement, a is not b, a and b cannot be distinguished by stating “is not” because “is not” is nothing. If “is not” cannot be described, only “is” can be used”. But the statement would be: a is b, and a and b would be the same. If they are the same, they are one thing and plurality is nonexistent. It is evident that he also claims that changing is false through his statements, “[h]ow could what is be in the future? How could it come to be? For if it came into being, it is not, nor if it is ever going to be,” (Fr. 8, ln 18-20). Parmenides does not understand how a can become b because he thinks that if a is b, then it is no longer a. Otherwise, it woul...
