Books by Jeremy C DeLong
Μimesis can refer to imitation, emulation, representation, or reenactment, and it is a concept th... more Μimesis can refer to imitation, emulation, representation, or reenactment, and it is a concept that links together many aspects of ancient Greek culture. The Western Greek bell-krater on the cover, for example, is painted with a scene from a phlyax play with performers imitating mythical characters drawn from poetry, which also represent collective cultural beliefs and practices. One figure is shown playing a flute, the music from which might imitate nature, or represent deeper truths of the cosmos based upon Pythagorean views (which were widespread in Western Greece at the time). The idea that mimesis should be restricted to ideals was made famous by Plato (whose connections to Pythagoreanism and Siracusa are well-known), and famously challenged by his student Aristotle (not to mention by the mimetic character of Plato’s own poetry). This volume gathers essays not only on the philosophical debate about mimesis, but also on its use in architecture, drama, poetry, history, music, ritual, and visual art. The emphasis is on examples from Hellenic cities in Southern Italy and Sicily, but the insights apply far beyond – even to modern times.
Authors include: Thomas Noble Howe, Francisco J. Gonzalez, Gene Fendt, Guilherme Domingues da Motta, Jeremy DeLong, Carolina Araújo, Marie-Élise Zovko, Lidia Palumbo, Sean Driscoll, Konstantinos Gkaleas, Anna Motta, Jure Zovko, Alexander H. Zistakis, Christos C. Evangeliou, Dorota Tymura, Iris Sulimani, Elliott Domagola, Jonah Radding, Giulia Corrente, Laura Tisi, Ewa Osek, Argyri G. Karanasiou, Rocío Manuela Cuadra Rubio, Jorge Tomás García, Aura Piccioni, and José Miguel Puebla Morón.
Papers by Jeremy C DeLong
An overview of Parmenides' life and major work, with a focus on the primary interpretative issues... more An overview of Parmenides' life and major work, with a focus on the primary interpretative issues of his philosophical poem, and his place in the narrative of Ancient Greek Philosophy.
The Many Faces of Mimesis: Selected Essays from the 2017 Symposium on the Hellenic Heritage of Western Greece (The Heritage of Western Greece Series)., 2018
Evidence for a Parmenidean influence on Plato’s Republic typically focuses on content from Bks. V... more Evidence for a Parmenidean influence on Plato’s Republic typically focuses on content from Bks. V-VI, and the development of Plato’s Theory of Forms. This essay aims to suggest that Plato’s censorship of poetic content in Bks. II-III—particularly the rules for portraying divine nature (376e-383c)—also draw heavily upon the Eleatic tradition, particularly Parmenides. Identifying this further Eleatic influence will be enhanced by my own reading of Parmenides. This reading advocates understanding Parmenides in a more Xenophanean-vein—i.e. by taking What-Is to be an explication of the essential qualities of divine nature, and the overall poem as rejecting traditional, mythopoetic accounts of divinity.
Recognizing this Eleatic influence on the censorship of poetic content, a tension arises. For Plato infamously censors poetic styles next, concluding that mimetic dialogue may only be rarely employed, and only then in imitation of virtuous persons and actions (392c-398b). This would entail banning all poetic works relying exclusively on mimetic dialogue. Yet, not only do Plato’s own dialogues entirely consist of mimetic dialogue, so does Parmenides’s proto-dialogue. Furthermore, by so closely imitating Parmenides’s thought and language in Republic, has not Plato himself engaged in a type of intellectual and compositional mίμησις? Just as it would be strange to ban the very dialogue (Republic) which outlines and justifies Kallipolis in the first place, it would also be troubling to ban a philosophical work (i.e. Parmenides’s poem) which Republic is so heavily indebted to. Such a ban would also seem strongly at odds with Plato’s general reverence for Parmenides. In an attempt to address these tensions, I suggest that in Republic II-III, Plato’s lack of concern for banning philosophical works along with mimetic poetry should further suggest that he intends the ban to be far narrower than it first appears: as a rejection of performative, rather than compositional, mίμησις.
Politics and Performance in Western Greece: Proceedings of the Second Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Heritage of Western Greece
Modern scholars have often been skeptical, even dismissive, of the view that Xenophanes significa... more Modern scholars have often been skeptical, even dismissive, of the view that Xenophanes significantly influenced Parmenides. Though it cannot be denied that both wrote in meter, Xenophanes has been dismissed as a poet who dallied in philosophical speculation, while Parmenides was a much more serious thinker who just happened to use epic hexameter closely mimicking Homer and Hesiod. Similarly, though there appear to be clear parallels between Xenophanes’ theism and Parmenides’ “what is,” this apparent similarity has been dismissed on the grounds that since Parmenides never says “what is” is divine, it is not.
However, the evidence from ancient sources strongly suggest a strong intellectual influence between these thinkers. Furthermore, Palmer’s recent and compelling defense of the modal interpretation of Parmenides and its theistic implications challenges the minimization of a Xenophanean influence. Significantly modifying Palmer’s modal interpretation, I advocate an even more radical approach to understanding Parmenides’ poem overall, resulting in an even stronger case for Xenophanean influence on Parmenides, while avoiding many persistent interpretative problems. I suggest that Parmenides only offers one positive thesis in his poem: that “what is” must necessarily possess the perfect properties argued for in DK 8, as that is what is essential to any necessary, and thus divine, being. The Doxa is a didactic example of how mortals err by attributing (“naming”) any properties other than those in DK 8 to divine beings. The parallels between Doxa and the Proem support this view, and together explain Parmenides’ close emulation and mimicry of Homer and Hesiod. These mythopoetic authors are his main targets, as they are the primary sources for traditional—though deeply mistaken—views of divinity. Thus, Parmenides is not only a novel metaphysician, but a radical philosopher of religion from Elea, who advanced the Ionian-based speculation of Xenophanes via deductive argumentation.
Southwest Philosophy Review 31.1, Jan 2015
This essay explicates the primary interpretative import of B1: 31-32 in Parmenides poem (On Natur... more This essay explicates the primary interpretative import of B1: 31-32 in Parmenides poem (On Nature)—lines which have radical implications for the overall argument, and which the traditional arrangement forces into an irreconcilable dilemma. I argue that the “negative” reading of lines 31-32 is preferable, even on the traditional arrangement. This negative reading denies that a third thing is to be taught to the reader by the goddess—a positive account of how the apparent world is to be “acceptably” understood. I then suggest that a rearrangement of the fragments would make more sense overall, while further supporting the “negative” reading as more natural and coherent. In particular, the rearrangement dispels the objection that, if mortal opinions were not true, why would Parmenides include such a lengthy false account of the apparent world--an account which explicitly denies the conclusions of the earlier section, ‘Truth’?
This paper analyzes ethical portrayals and tensions in Star Trek: Into Darkness. It is argued th... more This paper analyzes ethical portrayals and tensions in Star Trek: Into Darkness. It is argued that the film’s overarching ethical theme is centered on portraying the intuitive failings of both strictly impartial and strictly partial ethical perspectives, and that the film suggests a synthesis of partiality and impartiality is needed for a complete and adequate moral view. With a rule-utilitarianism system standing in for impartial theories, and a version of the ethics of care for partiality, the argument is especially relevant for those interested in the tension between traditional “male” ethical views and the criticisms of such by the “feminine” ethics of care.
In James Van Cleve's recent monograph, "Problems From Kant," the author suggests that the perenni... more In James Van Cleve's recent monograph, "Problems From Kant," the author suggests that the perennial problem of the "Neglected Alternative" (the apparent oversight of Kant to consider that space and time might not be just a subjective, necessary aspect of human cognition, but also exist as things -in-themselves as well) can be solved by considering Kant's "Transcendental Idealism" to be a genuine, Berkeleyan-style idealism. In this paper, I point out that not only does Van Cleve fail to properly explicate this supposed solution, but that any possible solution he might attempt along these lines will ultimately fail.
The primary argument in this paper is that Parmenides' metaphysical poem follows the structural p... more The primary argument in this paper is that Parmenides' metaphysical poem follows the structural pattern known as "ring-composition," based upon Mary Douglas' seminal work on the topic (Thinking in Circles). The paper also considers how the presence of this structural theme should affect how we read and interpret the text in radically different ways.
The primary interpretative challenge for understanding Parmenides’ poem revolves around explainin... more The primary interpretative challenge for understanding Parmenides’ poem revolves around explaining both the meaning of, and the relationship between, its two primary sections: a) the positively endorsed metaphysical arguments which describe some unified, unchanging, motionless, and eternal “reality” (Aletheia), and b) the ensuing cosmology (Doxa), which incorporates the very principles explicitly denied in Aletheia. I will refer to this problem as the “A-D Paradox.” I advocate resolving this paradoxical relationship by reading Parmenides’ poem as a ring-composition, and incorporating a modified version of Palmer’s modal interpretation of Aletheia.
On my interpretation, Parmenides’ thesis in Aletheia is not a counter-intuitive description of how all the world (or its fundamental, genuine entities) must truly be, but rather a radical rethinking of divine nature. Understanding Aletheia in this way, the ensuing “cosmology” (Doxa) can be straightforwardly rejected as an exposition of how traditional, mythopoetic accounts have misled mortals in their understanding of divinity. Not only does this interpretative view provide a resolution to the A-D Paradox, it offers a more holistic account of the poem by making the opening lines of introduction (Proem) integral to understanding Parmenides’ message. By setting forth its own unacceptable fiction, paralleling the elements of the Doxa in a ring-composition, the Proem simultaneously establishes the scope of the ensuing inquiry (divinity itself), and its target (traditional accounts of divinity). Maintaining Parmenides’ historical position as the “father of metaphysics,” the narrative that he advanced a strictly secular account of all reality is challenged. Instead, Parmenides is best understood as further advancing Xenophanes’ criticisms of traditional religion, an intellectual relationship which the ancient testimonia strongly supports.
While the meaning of lines 31-32 of Fragment 1 (DK 1.31-32) in Parmenides’ epic-style poem seem t... more While the meaning of lines 31-32 of Fragment 1 (DK 1.31-32) in Parmenides’ epic-style poem seem to have significant implications for the overall argument of the poem, attempts to understand them have resulted in generations of interpretative deadlock. After considering the problem, I argue that the best way to make sense of these lines in relation to the overall poem is to hold that Parmenides consistently holds mortal opinions in low-regard, and that the third section of the poem (Opinion) should be far more limited in scope than has been traditionally thought. Not only is this negative reading preferable on the traditional arrangement of the poem, but the case for it is significantly strengthened on certain suggested rearrangements of the poem—rearrangements which are strongly supported independently of any interpretative commitments.
In what follows, readers will first find: a) an introduction to the overall poem, b) a survey and analysis of the variant Greek texts and modern translations of lines 31-32, and c) an explication of the primary interpretative dilemma modern commentators face in interpreting these lines. This provides both an in-depth summary and review of the literature on this particular topic, filling an important lacuna in the literature. With these considerations in hand, the essay will turn to its secondary aim—considering how the interpretative dilemma might best be resolved. The relevant challenges for both positive and negative readings are considered under the traditional ordering (Diels-Kranz) of the poem. Having established the negative reading of lines 1.31-32 to be preferable on the traditional arrangement, several recently proposed rearrangements are considered, in terms of what impacts the arguments for their respective changes to the poem, if acceptable, might have for our understanding of these problematic lines and the negative reading. Again, it is concluded that the particular arguments for rearrangement that are considered can only aid the negative reading.
There are two major aims to this paper. The first and broader aim is to challenge a particular ty... more There are two major aims to this paper. The first and broader aim is to challenge a particular type of developmentalist reading of Plato’s political philosophy with regards to the Statesman. The narrower focus, by which the broader aim will be realized, is to challenge Thanassis Samaras’s reading of this dialogue—particularly his claim that the laws in non-ideal constitutions can be said to possess valuable content. In doing so, I will be advocating and further developing an interpretation first championed by Christopher Rowe on this topic, which holds that the laws of the ideal constitutions are “imitations of truth,” not the laws of the non-ideal constitutions. In the end, it will be argued that Plato’s Statesman is best interpreted as a continuation of the major themes and commitments of the Republic, particularly with regards to: 1) the value (or lack thereof) of rule without knowledge, as well as 2) the treatment of imitation in both dialogues. This position is opposed to viewing the dialogue as an evidential bridge from the ideal state in the Republic towards certain questionable readings of the Laws—wherein Plato supposedly grows more pessimistic towards his idealistic state, embracing the more practical solution of rule by laws, and significantly elevating the value and justification of such rule.
Conference Presentations by Jeremy C DeLong
Heritage of Western Greece Book Series
Parmenides wrote a single philosophical poem, employing dactylic-hexameter (epic) verse to constr... more Parmenides wrote a single philosophical poem, employing dactylic-hexameter (epic) verse to construct a dialogue between mortal and divine agents. In doing so, he closely followed the style and content of Homer and Hesiod. This Parmenides’ poem is a form of compositional imitation (μίμησις). Contrary to received opinion, there is good reason to think this μίμησις is intended to serve a critical function against the mythopoetic tradition.
If this is the case, it is quite ironic that in doing so, Parmenides’ poem later becomes susceptible to Plato’s own infamous criticisms of epic poetry. While it is not clear what (if anything) Plato would make of Parmenides’ compositional form of μίμησις, arguments in Republic ban the performative form of μίμησις commonly found in epic poetry (including Parmenides’ poem). This performative form is a consequence of reading dialogue aloud in a performative manner, suiting speech and action to the dialogue. Laws established in Republic Bks. 2-3 require that poets primarily employ impersonal narratives (3rd person), only rarely using mimetic delivery to imitate good men. As Parmenides’ poem consists entirely of first-person dialogue, it clearly violates this prescription. Furthermore, it seems entailed that citizens of Callipolis may only imitate the speech of good men—not deities, like the spokes-goddess of Parmenides’ poem. Even if it could pass these tests, Republic Bk. 10 clearly bans all artistic forms of μίμησις.
Despite this, it is clear that Plato was deeply influenced by, and greatly admired, Parmenides. This respect seems to deepen later in life (e.g. Parmenides, “Eleatic Stranger,” etc.), as does Plato’s toleration of performative μίμησις (Laws). If a diachronic correlation could be drawn between these developments, it is worth considering whether Plato’s increased intellectual μίμησις of Parmenides led him (at least in part) to change his mind about μίμησις in general.
I argue that the Proem can be understood as a gender-reversed allegory for ancient Greek wedding ... more I argue that the Proem can be understood as a gender-reversed allegory for ancient Greek wedding processions. The textual and material (vase-paintings) evidence attests that weddings traditionally included a chariot procession, conveying the bride from her parent’s house to her new married home. This procession typically occurred at night, after the ceremony, the bride’s unveiling, and a celebratory feast. The chariot would be driven by her new husband or his agents, and the procession accompanied by dancing and music along the way. Upon arriving, the bride would be welcomed by her husband and/or his family, and led into the house to the hearth.
The description of the philosopher-youth’s journey to meet the poem’s spokes-goddess bears many parallels to this description. In this case, the Heliades (female agents) drive the chariot. As they set out on their journey, the Heliades unveil themselves—an action only commonly performed in public at a wedding. The axles of the chariot are described as making the noise of a pan-pipe, paralleling the musical accompaniment common for wedding processions. In conveying the philosopher-youth to the anonymous goddess’ home (i.e. The House of Night), the philosopher-youth takes the place of “bride,” and the spokes-goddess the waiting “bridegroom.” The spokes-goddess’ welcome of the youth, particularly the taking of his hand, closely matches imagery associated with marriage and sexual union, or abduction. Most compelling is the combined imagery of a particular pyxis (London1920.12-21.1). Not only does the vase’s body depict a mortal wedding procession, the lid depicts a circular procession of Helios, Sylene, and Nyx—which very closely tracks the dualistic Light/Night imagery in Proem and Doxa, as well as the likely identification of Nyx (Night) as the anonymous spokes-goddess.
Overall, as ancient Greek weddings are the beginning of sexual unions from which (legitimate) heirs are generated, such thematic imagery might then stand as a fitting parallel to the themes of generation (both sexual and non-sexual) found in Doxa, and the denial of generation/perishing in the poem’s central metaphysical section (Aletheia). A further speculative inference from this might be that doing philosophy is akin to a union (marriage/sex) with the divine, from which legitimate progeny (philosophical conclusions) can be generated. Rather than a Socratic midwife who assists in the birth of ideas, Parmenides might see himself as a partner in their production, though as a mortal in congress with a divine being, he appropriately makes himself the more passive, less-powerful member of the union.
Film and Philosophy
Since STB hit theaters, it has won great acclaim, generally winning over critics and lay audience... more Since STB hit theaters, it has won great acclaim, generally winning over critics and lay audience members alike for its fun action and engaging characters—a rare hit in an otherwise fledgling market, suffering from an oversaturation of other sequels and reboots/remakes. However, there has yet to be any substantive analysis of the philosophical themes promised by Pegg and Lin. As online reviewers have understandably wanted to avoid “spoilers,” it is fortunate that this forum offers an opportunity for inquiring further. The overarching question here is, to what extent were Lin and Pegg justified in presenting STB as significantly engaged in philosophical reflection? Or, how well does the film support their claims? As there are numerous perspectives and foci upon which such an analysis might proceed, a complete accounting of this broader topic must await a lengthier treatment than can be offered here. This paper will more narrowly focus on how the film’s main villain (Krall) might be coherently understood as offering a consistent and substantial perspective which stands in direct tension to the worldview and ideals represented by the Federation (as well as the crew of the Enterprise).
I suggest that closer attention to the Proem’s relationship to Doxa can lead to a resolution of t... more I suggest that closer attention to the Proem’s relationship to Doxa can lead to a resolution of the central interpretative problem (“A-D Paradox”) in Parmenides’ poem. These book-ending sections share a great deal of imagery, and their themes stand in parallel (or rather, reverse-parallel). There is a circular journey from the mortal to divine realm in the Proem, and a return from discussion of the divine (theogony and cosmogony) to mortal topics (sexual reproduction in animals) in Doxa. The Proem begins with named, concrete, anthropomorphic divine agents, and transitions towards more abstract powers, ending with meeting the spokes-goddess who, while anthropomorphic, has no clearly identified name, powers, or associations. In reverse, the Doxa begins with an abstract, unnamed entity, and proceeds to name and associate powers with gods and heavenly objects, concluding by “naming” all things.
These similarities, along with others, suggest an intentional reverse-parallelism common in archaic ring-composition. Adopting this non-linear reading of the poem, the Proem can be understood to set up a problem (supernatural, anthropomorphic accounts of the divine in the mythopoetical tradition), offer a resolution (adopting a modal reading of Aletheia similar to Palmer’s, of what necessary and thus divine being must be like), and a return to the initial problem (mythopoetical accounts) which are warned against. In this way, the A-D Paradox is eliminated entirely, as Doxa can be taken entirely negatively—how mortals misunderstand the nature of the divine—without any problematically absurd entailments (e.g. denying the reality of the sensible world), or risk of anachronism (e.g. Parmenides’ anticipated Plato’s “Two-World” view of the Forms and sensibles). Instead, by criticizing traditional religious accounts and offering an alternative view of divine nature founded on reason, Parmenides’ poem aptly fits his cultural context, and closely follows Xenophanes, as ancient reports regularly attested.
Modern scholars have often been skeptical, even dismissive, of the view that Xenophanes significa... more Modern scholars have often been skeptical, even dismissive, of the view that Xenophanes significantly influenced Parmenides. Though it cannot be denied that both wrote in meter, Xenophanes has been dismissed as a poet who dallied in philosophical speculation, while Parmenides was a much more serious thinker who just happened to use epic hexameter closely mimicking Homer and Hesiod. Similarly, though there appear to be clear parallels between Xenophanes’ theism and Parmenides’ “what is,” this apparent similarity has been dismissed on the grounds that since Parmenides never says “what is” is divine, it is not.
However, the evidence from ancient sources strongly suggest a strong intellectual influence between these thinkers. Furthermore, Palmer’s recent and compelling defense of the modal interpretation of Parmenides and its theistic implications challenges the minimization of a Xenophanean influence. Significantly modifying Palmer’s modal interpretation, I advocate an even more radical approach to understanding Parmenides’ poem overall, resulting in an even stronger case for Xenophanean influence on Parmenides, while avoiding many persistent interpretative problems. I suggest that Parmenides only offers one positive thesis in his poem: that “what is” must necessarily possess the perfect properties argued for in DK 8, as that is what is essential to any necessary, and thus divine, being. The Doxa is a didactic example of how mortals err by attributing (“naming”) any properties other than those in DK 8 to divine beings. The parallels between Doxa and the Proem support this view, and together explain Parmenides’ close emulation and mimicry of Homer and Hesiod. These mythopoetic authors are his main targets, as they are the primary sources for traditional—though deeply mistaken—views of divinity. Thus, Parmenides is not only a novel metaphysician, but a radical philosopher of religion from Elea, who advanced the Ionian-based speculation of Xenophanes via deductive argumentation.
This essay explicates the primary interpretative import of B1: 31-32 in Parmenides poem (On Natur... more This essay explicates the primary interpretative import of B1: 31-32 in Parmenides poem (On Nature)—lines which have radical implications for the overall argument, and which the traditional arrangement forces into an irreconcilable dilemma. I argue that the “negative” reading of lines 31-32 is preferable, even on the traditional arrangement. This negative reading denies that a third thing is to be taught to the reader by the goddess—a positive account of how the apparent world is to be “acceptably” understood. I then suggest that a rearrangement of the fragments would make more sense overall, while further supporting the “negative” reading as more natural and coherent. In particular, the rearrangement dispels the objection that, if mortal opinions were not true, why would Parmenides include such a lengthy false account of the apparent world--an account which explicitly denies the conclusions of the earlier section, ‘Truth’?
This paper examines the conflicts between Kirk and Spock's ethical perspectives in Star Trek: In... more This paper examines the conflicts between Kirk and Spock's ethical perspectives in Star Trek: Into Darkness. It is argued that the overall message of the film can be understood as a critical analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the feminist ethics of care. In the end, the film suggests that while there is value to an ethics of care perspective, this moral view is insufficient on its own, and should be melded with more traditional and impartial "male" perspectives.
Uploads
Books by Jeremy C DeLong
Authors include: Thomas Noble Howe, Francisco J. Gonzalez, Gene Fendt, Guilherme Domingues da Motta, Jeremy DeLong, Carolina Araújo, Marie-Élise Zovko, Lidia Palumbo, Sean Driscoll, Konstantinos Gkaleas, Anna Motta, Jure Zovko, Alexander H. Zistakis, Christos C. Evangeliou, Dorota Tymura, Iris Sulimani, Elliott Domagola, Jonah Radding, Giulia Corrente, Laura Tisi, Ewa Osek, Argyri G. Karanasiou, Rocío Manuela Cuadra Rubio, Jorge Tomás García, Aura Piccioni, and José Miguel Puebla Morón.
Papers by Jeremy C DeLong
Recognizing this Eleatic influence on the censorship of poetic content, a tension arises. For Plato infamously censors poetic styles next, concluding that mimetic dialogue may only be rarely employed, and only then in imitation of virtuous persons and actions (392c-398b). This would entail banning all poetic works relying exclusively on mimetic dialogue. Yet, not only do Plato’s own dialogues entirely consist of mimetic dialogue, so does Parmenides’s proto-dialogue. Furthermore, by so closely imitating Parmenides’s thought and language in Republic, has not Plato himself engaged in a type of intellectual and compositional mίμησις? Just as it would be strange to ban the very dialogue (Republic) which outlines and justifies Kallipolis in the first place, it would also be troubling to ban a philosophical work (i.e. Parmenides’s poem) which Republic is so heavily indebted to. Such a ban would also seem strongly at odds with Plato’s general reverence for Parmenides. In an attempt to address these tensions, I suggest that in Republic II-III, Plato’s lack of concern for banning philosophical works along with mimetic poetry should further suggest that he intends the ban to be far narrower than it first appears: as a rejection of performative, rather than compositional, mίμησις.
However, the evidence from ancient sources strongly suggest a strong intellectual influence between these thinkers. Furthermore, Palmer’s recent and compelling defense of the modal interpretation of Parmenides and its theistic implications challenges the minimization of a Xenophanean influence. Significantly modifying Palmer’s modal interpretation, I advocate an even more radical approach to understanding Parmenides’ poem overall, resulting in an even stronger case for Xenophanean influence on Parmenides, while avoiding many persistent interpretative problems. I suggest that Parmenides only offers one positive thesis in his poem: that “what is” must necessarily possess the perfect properties argued for in DK 8, as that is what is essential to any necessary, and thus divine, being. The Doxa is a didactic example of how mortals err by attributing (“naming”) any properties other than those in DK 8 to divine beings. The parallels between Doxa and the Proem support this view, and together explain Parmenides’ close emulation and mimicry of Homer and Hesiod. These mythopoetic authors are his main targets, as they are the primary sources for traditional—though deeply mistaken—views of divinity. Thus, Parmenides is not only a novel metaphysician, but a radical philosopher of religion from Elea, who advanced the Ionian-based speculation of Xenophanes via deductive argumentation.
On my interpretation, Parmenides’ thesis in Aletheia is not a counter-intuitive description of how all the world (or its fundamental, genuine entities) must truly be, but rather a radical rethinking of divine nature. Understanding Aletheia in this way, the ensuing “cosmology” (Doxa) can be straightforwardly rejected as an exposition of how traditional, mythopoetic accounts have misled mortals in their understanding of divinity. Not only does this interpretative view provide a resolution to the A-D Paradox, it offers a more holistic account of the poem by making the opening lines of introduction (Proem) integral to understanding Parmenides’ message. By setting forth its own unacceptable fiction, paralleling the elements of the Doxa in a ring-composition, the Proem simultaneously establishes the scope of the ensuing inquiry (divinity itself), and its target (traditional accounts of divinity). Maintaining Parmenides’ historical position as the “father of metaphysics,” the narrative that he advanced a strictly secular account of all reality is challenged. Instead, Parmenides is best understood as further advancing Xenophanes’ criticisms of traditional religion, an intellectual relationship which the ancient testimonia strongly supports.
In what follows, readers will first find: a) an introduction to the overall poem, b) a survey and analysis of the variant Greek texts and modern translations of lines 31-32, and c) an explication of the primary interpretative dilemma modern commentators face in interpreting these lines. This provides both an in-depth summary and review of the literature on this particular topic, filling an important lacuna in the literature. With these considerations in hand, the essay will turn to its secondary aim—considering how the interpretative dilemma might best be resolved. The relevant challenges for both positive and negative readings are considered under the traditional ordering (Diels-Kranz) of the poem. Having established the negative reading of lines 1.31-32 to be preferable on the traditional arrangement, several recently proposed rearrangements are considered, in terms of what impacts the arguments for their respective changes to the poem, if acceptable, might have for our understanding of these problematic lines and the negative reading. Again, it is concluded that the particular arguments for rearrangement that are considered can only aid the negative reading.
Conference Presentations by Jeremy C DeLong
If this is the case, it is quite ironic that in doing so, Parmenides’ poem later becomes susceptible to Plato’s own infamous criticisms of epic poetry. While it is not clear what (if anything) Plato would make of Parmenides’ compositional form of μίμησις, arguments in Republic ban the performative form of μίμησις commonly found in epic poetry (including Parmenides’ poem). This performative form is a consequence of reading dialogue aloud in a performative manner, suiting speech and action to the dialogue. Laws established in Republic Bks. 2-3 require that poets primarily employ impersonal narratives (3rd person), only rarely using mimetic delivery to imitate good men. As Parmenides’ poem consists entirely of first-person dialogue, it clearly violates this prescription. Furthermore, it seems entailed that citizens of Callipolis may only imitate the speech of good men—not deities, like the spokes-goddess of Parmenides’ poem. Even if it could pass these tests, Republic Bk. 10 clearly bans all artistic forms of μίμησις.
Despite this, it is clear that Plato was deeply influenced by, and greatly admired, Parmenides. This respect seems to deepen later in life (e.g. Parmenides, “Eleatic Stranger,” etc.), as does Plato’s toleration of performative μίμησις (Laws). If a diachronic correlation could be drawn between these developments, it is worth considering whether Plato’s increased intellectual μίμησις of Parmenides led him (at least in part) to change his mind about μίμησις in general.
The description of the philosopher-youth’s journey to meet the poem’s spokes-goddess bears many parallels to this description. In this case, the Heliades (female agents) drive the chariot. As they set out on their journey, the Heliades unveil themselves—an action only commonly performed in public at a wedding. The axles of the chariot are described as making the noise of a pan-pipe, paralleling the musical accompaniment common for wedding processions. In conveying the philosopher-youth to the anonymous goddess’ home (i.e. The House of Night), the philosopher-youth takes the place of “bride,” and the spokes-goddess the waiting “bridegroom.” The spokes-goddess’ welcome of the youth, particularly the taking of his hand, closely matches imagery associated with marriage and sexual union, or abduction. Most compelling is the combined imagery of a particular pyxis (London1920.12-21.1). Not only does the vase’s body depict a mortal wedding procession, the lid depicts a circular procession of Helios, Sylene, and Nyx—which very closely tracks the dualistic Light/Night imagery in Proem and Doxa, as well as the likely identification of Nyx (Night) as the anonymous spokes-goddess.
Overall, as ancient Greek weddings are the beginning of sexual unions from which (legitimate) heirs are generated, such thematic imagery might then stand as a fitting parallel to the themes of generation (both sexual and non-sexual) found in Doxa, and the denial of generation/perishing in the poem’s central metaphysical section (Aletheia). A further speculative inference from this might be that doing philosophy is akin to a union (marriage/sex) with the divine, from which legitimate progeny (philosophical conclusions) can be generated. Rather than a Socratic midwife who assists in the birth of ideas, Parmenides might see himself as a partner in their production, though as a mortal in congress with a divine being, he appropriately makes himself the more passive, less-powerful member of the union.
These similarities, along with others, suggest an intentional reverse-parallelism common in archaic ring-composition. Adopting this non-linear reading of the poem, the Proem can be understood to set up a problem (supernatural, anthropomorphic accounts of the divine in the mythopoetical tradition), offer a resolution (adopting a modal reading of Aletheia similar to Palmer’s, of what necessary and thus divine being must be like), and a return to the initial problem (mythopoetical accounts) which are warned against. In this way, the A-D Paradox is eliminated entirely, as Doxa can be taken entirely negatively—how mortals misunderstand the nature of the divine—without any problematically absurd entailments (e.g. denying the reality of the sensible world), or risk of anachronism (e.g. Parmenides’ anticipated Plato’s “Two-World” view of the Forms and sensibles). Instead, by criticizing traditional religious accounts and offering an alternative view of divine nature founded on reason, Parmenides’ poem aptly fits his cultural context, and closely follows Xenophanes, as ancient reports regularly attested.
However, the evidence from ancient sources strongly suggest a strong intellectual influence between these thinkers. Furthermore, Palmer’s recent and compelling defense of the modal interpretation of Parmenides and its theistic implications challenges the minimization of a Xenophanean influence. Significantly modifying Palmer’s modal interpretation, I advocate an even more radical approach to understanding Parmenides’ poem overall, resulting in an even stronger case for Xenophanean influence on Parmenides, while avoiding many persistent interpretative problems. I suggest that Parmenides only offers one positive thesis in his poem: that “what is” must necessarily possess the perfect properties argued for in DK 8, as that is what is essential to any necessary, and thus divine, being. The Doxa is a didactic example of how mortals err by attributing (“naming”) any properties other than those in DK 8 to divine beings. The parallels between Doxa and the Proem support this view, and together explain Parmenides’ close emulation and mimicry of Homer and Hesiod. These mythopoetic authors are his main targets, as they are the primary sources for traditional—though deeply mistaken—views of divinity. Thus, Parmenides is not only a novel metaphysician, but a radical philosopher of religion from Elea, who advanced the Ionian-based speculation of Xenophanes via deductive argumentation.
Authors include: Thomas Noble Howe, Francisco J. Gonzalez, Gene Fendt, Guilherme Domingues da Motta, Jeremy DeLong, Carolina Araújo, Marie-Élise Zovko, Lidia Palumbo, Sean Driscoll, Konstantinos Gkaleas, Anna Motta, Jure Zovko, Alexander H. Zistakis, Christos C. Evangeliou, Dorota Tymura, Iris Sulimani, Elliott Domagola, Jonah Radding, Giulia Corrente, Laura Tisi, Ewa Osek, Argyri G. Karanasiou, Rocío Manuela Cuadra Rubio, Jorge Tomás García, Aura Piccioni, and José Miguel Puebla Morón.
Recognizing this Eleatic influence on the censorship of poetic content, a tension arises. For Plato infamously censors poetic styles next, concluding that mimetic dialogue may only be rarely employed, and only then in imitation of virtuous persons and actions (392c-398b). This would entail banning all poetic works relying exclusively on mimetic dialogue. Yet, not only do Plato’s own dialogues entirely consist of mimetic dialogue, so does Parmenides’s proto-dialogue. Furthermore, by so closely imitating Parmenides’s thought and language in Republic, has not Plato himself engaged in a type of intellectual and compositional mίμησις? Just as it would be strange to ban the very dialogue (Republic) which outlines and justifies Kallipolis in the first place, it would also be troubling to ban a philosophical work (i.e. Parmenides’s poem) which Republic is so heavily indebted to. Such a ban would also seem strongly at odds with Plato’s general reverence for Parmenides. In an attempt to address these tensions, I suggest that in Republic II-III, Plato’s lack of concern for banning philosophical works along with mimetic poetry should further suggest that he intends the ban to be far narrower than it first appears: as a rejection of performative, rather than compositional, mίμησις.
However, the evidence from ancient sources strongly suggest a strong intellectual influence between these thinkers. Furthermore, Palmer’s recent and compelling defense of the modal interpretation of Parmenides and its theistic implications challenges the minimization of a Xenophanean influence. Significantly modifying Palmer’s modal interpretation, I advocate an even more radical approach to understanding Parmenides’ poem overall, resulting in an even stronger case for Xenophanean influence on Parmenides, while avoiding many persistent interpretative problems. I suggest that Parmenides only offers one positive thesis in his poem: that “what is” must necessarily possess the perfect properties argued for in DK 8, as that is what is essential to any necessary, and thus divine, being. The Doxa is a didactic example of how mortals err by attributing (“naming”) any properties other than those in DK 8 to divine beings. The parallels between Doxa and the Proem support this view, and together explain Parmenides’ close emulation and mimicry of Homer and Hesiod. These mythopoetic authors are his main targets, as they are the primary sources for traditional—though deeply mistaken—views of divinity. Thus, Parmenides is not only a novel metaphysician, but a radical philosopher of religion from Elea, who advanced the Ionian-based speculation of Xenophanes via deductive argumentation.
On my interpretation, Parmenides’ thesis in Aletheia is not a counter-intuitive description of how all the world (or its fundamental, genuine entities) must truly be, but rather a radical rethinking of divine nature. Understanding Aletheia in this way, the ensuing “cosmology” (Doxa) can be straightforwardly rejected as an exposition of how traditional, mythopoetic accounts have misled mortals in their understanding of divinity. Not only does this interpretative view provide a resolution to the A-D Paradox, it offers a more holistic account of the poem by making the opening lines of introduction (Proem) integral to understanding Parmenides’ message. By setting forth its own unacceptable fiction, paralleling the elements of the Doxa in a ring-composition, the Proem simultaneously establishes the scope of the ensuing inquiry (divinity itself), and its target (traditional accounts of divinity). Maintaining Parmenides’ historical position as the “father of metaphysics,” the narrative that he advanced a strictly secular account of all reality is challenged. Instead, Parmenides is best understood as further advancing Xenophanes’ criticisms of traditional religion, an intellectual relationship which the ancient testimonia strongly supports.
In what follows, readers will first find: a) an introduction to the overall poem, b) a survey and analysis of the variant Greek texts and modern translations of lines 31-32, and c) an explication of the primary interpretative dilemma modern commentators face in interpreting these lines. This provides both an in-depth summary and review of the literature on this particular topic, filling an important lacuna in the literature. With these considerations in hand, the essay will turn to its secondary aim—considering how the interpretative dilemma might best be resolved. The relevant challenges for both positive and negative readings are considered under the traditional ordering (Diels-Kranz) of the poem. Having established the negative reading of lines 1.31-32 to be preferable on the traditional arrangement, several recently proposed rearrangements are considered, in terms of what impacts the arguments for their respective changes to the poem, if acceptable, might have for our understanding of these problematic lines and the negative reading. Again, it is concluded that the particular arguments for rearrangement that are considered can only aid the negative reading.
If this is the case, it is quite ironic that in doing so, Parmenides’ poem later becomes susceptible to Plato’s own infamous criticisms of epic poetry. While it is not clear what (if anything) Plato would make of Parmenides’ compositional form of μίμησις, arguments in Republic ban the performative form of μίμησις commonly found in epic poetry (including Parmenides’ poem). This performative form is a consequence of reading dialogue aloud in a performative manner, suiting speech and action to the dialogue. Laws established in Republic Bks. 2-3 require that poets primarily employ impersonal narratives (3rd person), only rarely using mimetic delivery to imitate good men. As Parmenides’ poem consists entirely of first-person dialogue, it clearly violates this prescription. Furthermore, it seems entailed that citizens of Callipolis may only imitate the speech of good men—not deities, like the spokes-goddess of Parmenides’ poem. Even if it could pass these tests, Republic Bk. 10 clearly bans all artistic forms of μίμησις.
Despite this, it is clear that Plato was deeply influenced by, and greatly admired, Parmenides. This respect seems to deepen later in life (e.g. Parmenides, “Eleatic Stranger,” etc.), as does Plato’s toleration of performative μίμησις (Laws). If a diachronic correlation could be drawn between these developments, it is worth considering whether Plato’s increased intellectual μίμησις of Parmenides led him (at least in part) to change his mind about μίμησις in general.
The description of the philosopher-youth’s journey to meet the poem’s spokes-goddess bears many parallels to this description. In this case, the Heliades (female agents) drive the chariot. As they set out on their journey, the Heliades unveil themselves—an action only commonly performed in public at a wedding. The axles of the chariot are described as making the noise of a pan-pipe, paralleling the musical accompaniment common for wedding processions. In conveying the philosopher-youth to the anonymous goddess’ home (i.e. The House of Night), the philosopher-youth takes the place of “bride,” and the spokes-goddess the waiting “bridegroom.” The spokes-goddess’ welcome of the youth, particularly the taking of his hand, closely matches imagery associated with marriage and sexual union, or abduction. Most compelling is the combined imagery of a particular pyxis (London1920.12-21.1). Not only does the vase’s body depict a mortal wedding procession, the lid depicts a circular procession of Helios, Sylene, and Nyx—which very closely tracks the dualistic Light/Night imagery in Proem and Doxa, as well as the likely identification of Nyx (Night) as the anonymous spokes-goddess.
Overall, as ancient Greek weddings are the beginning of sexual unions from which (legitimate) heirs are generated, such thematic imagery might then stand as a fitting parallel to the themes of generation (both sexual and non-sexual) found in Doxa, and the denial of generation/perishing in the poem’s central metaphysical section (Aletheia). A further speculative inference from this might be that doing philosophy is akin to a union (marriage/sex) with the divine, from which legitimate progeny (philosophical conclusions) can be generated. Rather than a Socratic midwife who assists in the birth of ideas, Parmenides might see himself as a partner in their production, though as a mortal in congress with a divine being, he appropriately makes himself the more passive, less-powerful member of the union.
These similarities, along with others, suggest an intentional reverse-parallelism common in archaic ring-composition. Adopting this non-linear reading of the poem, the Proem can be understood to set up a problem (supernatural, anthropomorphic accounts of the divine in the mythopoetical tradition), offer a resolution (adopting a modal reading of Aletheia similar to Palmer’s, of what necessary and thus divine being must be like), and a return to the initial problem (mythopoetical accounts) which are warned against. In this way, the A-D Paradox is eliminated entirely, as Doxa can be taken entirely negatively—how mortals misunderstand the nature of the divine—without any problematically absurd entailments (e.g. denying the reality of the sensible world), or risk of anachronism (e.g. Parmenides’ anticipated Plato’s “Two-World” view of the Forms and sensibles). Instead, by criticizing traditional religious accounts and offering an alternative view of divine nature founded on reason, Parmenides’ poem aptly fits his cultural context, and closely follows Xenophanes, as ancient reports regularly attested.
However, the evidence from ancient sources strongly suggest a strong intellectual influence between these thinkers. Furthermore, Palmer’s recent and compelling defense of the modal interpretation of Parmenides and its theistic implications challenges the minimization of a Xenophanean influence. Significantly modifying Palmer’s modal interpretation, I advocate an even more radical approach to understanding Parmenides’ poem overall, resulting in an even stronger case for Xenophanean influence on Parmenides, while avoiding many persistent interpretative problems. I suggest that Parmenides only offers one positive thesis in his poem: that “what is” must necessarily possess the perfect properties argued for in DK 8, as that is what is essential to any necessary, and thus divine, being. The Doxa is a didactic example of how mortals err by attributing (“naming”) any properties other than those in DK 8 to divine beings. The parallels between Doxa and the Proem support this view, and together explain Parmenides’ close emulation and mimicry of Homer and Hesiod. These mythopoetic authors are his main targets, as they are the primary sources for traditional—though deeply mistaken—views of divinity. Thus, Parmenides is not only a novel metaphysician, but a radical philosopher of religion from Elea, who advanced the Ionian-based speculation of Xenophanes via deductive argumentation.