The Instigator
Surrealism
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
justiceandtruth
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Parmenidean Monism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 63861
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Surrealism

Pro

This is a topic I have never debated before, but I am very interested in exploring it further.

Definitions:

Parmenidean Monism - The idea that all of reality is unchanging, and thus all observed change is illusory.
justiceandtruth

Con

What the heck haha I will accept
I accept that Parmenidean Monoism is -"The idea that all of reality is unchanging, and thus all observed change is illusory."

Definitions
Reality- "something that actually exists or happens : a real event, occurrence, situation, etc."
Fact- something known to exist or to have happened:
Actual- real and not merely possible or imagined
Change-to become different
All definitions provided by dictionary.com

Parmenidean Monoism says that reality is unchanging and anything that occurs in reality that appears to change is illusory. This has to be disproved by the con showing that change is substantive and thus exist.

Proving existence through fact:
p.1)Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president
Andrew Johnson was the 17th president
p.2)since the actual President differed this represents change, a change in president.
It is documented fact that the president changed.
p.3)Since fact is something known to have existed,
existence falls within the constraints of reality,
C.1)fact represents change and change is apparent in reality which means change isn't illusory.

If you didn't buy that proof then here is another outlook

If reality wasn't subject to change our constantly changing existence is illusory.

The nature of man is to grow and change. Humans are constantly changing evolving creatures. Birth to childhood, childhood to puberty,puberty to adulthood, adulthood to senior-hood, senior-hood to death. Our constant change, upon the basis of Perminidean Monism is all illusory. Since our life is constant change our lives themselves are illusory. Under this premise existence is illusory. This far fetched idea maintains under rational syllogism that if our existence itself is illusory than if reality is based off of things that exist, and nothing exist reality in itself is illusory. This makes no sense and this is why Parmendian Monism is a theory placed on fallacy.
Debate Round No. 1
Surrealism

Pro

I should have specified that the first round is for acceptance, but this works fine.

Premise One: Everything is the set of all real things.

Premise Two: If something new is added to a set, then the set did not previously contain that thing.

Premise Three: If something in a set becomes something new, then the set did not previously contain that thing.

Premise Four: If something is removed from a set, then the identity of that set has changed.

Premise Five: Nothing new can be added to the set of everything. (Justified by One and Two)

Premise Six: Nothing in the set everything can become something new. (Justified by One and Three)

Premise Seven: Nothing can be removed from the set of everything. (Justified by One and Four)

Premise Eight: Everything cannot change. (Justified by Five, Six, and Seven)

Conclusion One: Nothing can change. (Justified by Eight)

Conclusion Two: Reality is unchanging. (Justified by Eight)


Now I move on to my opponent's arguments.

My opponent's arguments are entirely based on a misconception about reality, that is to say, simply observing a phenomenon does not prove its occurrence. My opponent has claimed that simply due to a claim that it is fact that the President of the United States has changed, reality is changing. However, my opponent has even mentioned the fault with this argument themselves.


"If reality wasn't subject to change our constantly changing existence is illusory."


This is precisely correct. The idea that our observations and experiences are illusory is refered to as solipsism, and is one of the more intriguing ideas in philosophy. Namely, it is intriguing because while our experiences may tell us that there is a world around us, we have no evidence that our senses provide genuine data about the world. With a lack of evidence, we are left with the philosophical obligation to conclude that unless we have evidence, we must reject the claim that the world we observe is genuine. This being the case, we have no evidence that the world in which the presidents change and humans change throughout their lives exists. Thus, we have no need to reject the existence of our lives, as my opponent claims we do.
justiceandtruth

Con

If existence is illusory like you corroborated. For something to be real under the basis of parmenidean monism it would not change. If our observe able universe is constantly changing, then the set of all real things as referred to in premise one doesn't exist. The only thing that works in your logic is that is that nothing in itself cannot change.

Solipsism-
Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
Since the way we collect facts about our world is through our observation and we cannot tell whether these observations are genuine or not based on solipsistic theory there is no way we can collect evidence to say whether our lives exist or not through parmenidean monism.

Life-
"the ability to grow, change, etc., that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks"
Our lives by definition change, all change we go through is illusory, if the changes we perceive are illusory, then the existence of our lives is illusory. The only way we can now we exist is by observation, if our observations are false, like you said we have a philosophical obligation to conclude unless we have evidence the authenticity of the observable world is void.
If we have no facts to collect it is impossible to know which reality we are apart of. Monism is one reality then if we aren't apart of this one then we do not exist.

P.1) reality is everything
P.2)everything in reality changes
P.3) change is illusory
P.4) everything is illusory
C.1) reality is illusory
Debate Round No. 2
Surrealism

Pro

"If our observe able universe is constantly changing, then the set of all real things as referred to in premise one doesn't exist."

No. The set of all real things refers to all things that do exist. By definition, all things that exist must exist.

"there is no way we can collect evidence to say whether our lives exist or not through parmenidean monism."

Not empricial evidence, no. But we can construct logical arguments, which is what I did.

"Our lives by definition change,"

To be clear, our external lives appear to change, whereas our minds do not. Therefore while it is true that our external lives can be said to not exist, our minds do.

"If we have no facts to collect it is impossible to know which reality we are apart of. Monism is one reality then if we aren't apart of this one then we do not exist."

It is not impossible. Again, we can still make a logical argument about monism, which is what I did.

I reject P2 in your argument. Our minds do not change.

However, even if I rejected solipsism, there is still a way to demonstrate that reality being unchanging is coherent.


Premise One: The mind is purely physical.

Premise Two: Memories are part of the mind.

Premise Three: All alleged observations of change are recorded in the memory.

Premise Four: That which is physical can exist in one state in one moment.

Premise Five: Memories are purely physical. (One and Two)

Premise Six: All alleged observations of change are physical. (Three and Five)

Premise Seven: All alleged observations of change can exist in one state in one moment. (Four and Six)

Premise Eight: That which can exist in one state in one moment can maintain the same identity by existing in one state in all moments.

Premise Nine: All alleged observations of change can maintain the same identity by existing in one state in all moments. (Seven and Eight)

Premise Ten: That which exists in one state in all moments is unchanging.

Conclusion: All alleged observations of change can be unchanging. (Nine and Ten)


Over to you, Con.
justiceandtruth

Con

If empirical evidence is illusory and John Locke argues that we our logic or mode of thinking is based upon empiricism.
empiricism- a theory that all knowledge originates in experience

Premise 1.) A stove is hot
Premise 2.)You touch the stove and the stove burns you
conclusion) Hot objects burn

So if our observations are false, and we base our learning off of illusory observations, then our perceived knowledge is illusory.
If our perceived knowledge illusory than the conclusions derived from our,"constructed logical arguments" are also illusory.
Without any reliable knowledge it is impossible to construct any logical arguments, logic no longer exist within the realm of reality which debunks your constructed logic theory

premise 1.) Rain is observed to fall from the sky
premise 2.)Empirical observation is illusory
conclusion) It is impossible to make any logical argument about where rain falls from or if rain even exist because all empirical observation is illusory
Non-sense

Your claim is that our minds do not change: Based on your 1st premise if our mind is purely physical than that means our minds will experience a cycle of life and death. Once we die so do our minds. The transition life and death represents a change in existence. Our minds change which means our minds are illusory.

The problem I have with the train of syllogism is that you appear to say that since observations can exist in all-states that observation cannot change. But observation can change the syllogism doesn't really make sense.

This is the problem with Parmenidean Monism, nothing is reality everything is just illusory, no substance.
Debate Round No. 3
Surrealism

Pro

"If empirical evidence is illusory"

I never said that. I merely specified the circumstances in which emprical evidence is not useful.

"John Locke argues that we our logic or mode of thinking is based upon empiricism."

Immanuel Kant argues that our mode of thinking is based upon both emprical and rational evidence. He believes that some concepts, such as space and time, simply cannot be learned about through observation alone.

"Premise 1.) A stove is hot
Premise 2.)You touch the stove and the stove burns you
conclusion) Hot objects burn"

The conclusion here does not follow from the premises. All we observe here is one instance of heat being associated with burning. As David Hume points out, this only shows a single occurrence, not that it is a universal rule. This is the problem of induction.

In any case, you make the false assumption that there is no possible concept that can be known without using emprical observations. However if you look at my argument in round two, you'll see that I needed to make no emprical observations to prove Parmenidean Monism.

"Based on your 1st premise if our mind is purely physical than that means our minds will experience a cycle of life and death."

Not necessarily. From where do you draw that conclusion?

"you appear to say that since observations can exist in all-states that observation cannot change."

That is not what I said. I said that allegedly observed changes can exist in one moment without actually needing changes to occur, and as you do not change the identity of the memories by extending one moment to all moments, we can see that our memory of changes allegedly occurring can exist in one state unchangingly without any change needing to occur.

"This is the problem with Parmenidean Monism, nothing is reality everything is just illusory, no substance."

Even if that were true (which my argument in round three proved it isn't) that wouldn't be a flaw in the idea. Solipsism is perfectly viable and coherent as a philosophical viewpoint. As Parmenidean Monism can be stated as a form of solipsism (although it does not necessarily have to be one), it follows that Parmenidean Monism is perfectly coherent, and, given my argument from round two, that Parmenidean Monism must also be true.
justiceandtruth

Con

You agreed with what I said about observation in the realm of parmenidean monism.
I said,""there is no way we can collect evidence to say whether our lives exist or not through parmenidean monism." Where you responded ,"Not empricial evidence, no. But we can construct logical arguments, which is what I did." We can conclude that from what you have stated since observations are empirical, then empirical data is illusory.

Immanuel Kant says we learn by both empirical and rational learning

Rational-based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Logic-reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Validity-the quality of being logically or factually sound
Facts-a truth known by actual experience or observation;
In Parmenidean Monism there is no way we can make any kind of logical arguments, because logical arguments are based on Validity and validity is based on fact and fact is based upon observation.
We have established under Parmenidean Monism that:
p.1) Observation is illusory
p.2) Fact is based on observations
p.3)Validity is based upon fact
p.4)Logic is based upon validity
c1)Logic is illusory

The David Hume proof only applies to syllogism that doesn't address nature. All hot objects, if you touch them will burn you, the nature of hot is to burn and thus David Hume's theory doesn't always apply.

Now to address your question: If our mind is physical and wasn't naturally inherent then our minds have a life cycle. Inception, growth,maintenance and decay. Our minds have to change if they are a physical object and from your syllogism it is in fact a "purely physical object".
Since the mind is the only example you have of something that doesn't change and I have sufficiently proved that the mind changes extend my proof that shows the ineffectiveness of Parmenidean Monism

P.1) reality is everything
P.2)everything in reality changes
P.3) change is illusory
P.4) everything is illusory
C.1) reality is illusory

The problem with both Parmenidean Monism and Solipsism is that eventually nothing exists and nothing can exist. Since everything in the physical world is constantly changing and under the premise of PM all observed change is illusory, the existence of reality is illusory. This ultimately means that Solipsism cannot exist under PM and PM creates an instance of non-existence for reality. For these reasons we must negate.

Very interesting round
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
No votes, eh? How disappointing.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Well. . . the traditional answer to these problems as given by Mahayana Buddhism (at least as far as I understand it) is that all definitions of reality in terms of "one", "many", "changing", "unchanging", etc. result in internal or experiential contradictions and, therefore, are to be dropped. Once dropped, reality stands as the non-conceptual, which is intuitively realized in the absence of grasping at all thoughts.

Nagarjuna proposed that the following categories never truly apply to anything:

1. It is (name your concept)
2. (Concept) is not
3. It is both
4. It is neither

What we have in place is working models, or mere concepts, which may be functionally effective to achieve a desires goal, but which ultimately tell us nothing about reality, whether as a whole or in part. But this may give us a "middle path" between monism and pluralism, for in non-conceptuality, the sameness or equality of all phenomena is admitted (when seen non-conceptually), while the flux and variation of phenomena is also admitted (when seen conceptually).

Maybe Nagarjuna's out to lunch, though! I haven't decided. I'm still young! Give me a break, man! :p
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
If reality is unchanging, yet we observe change, how would we know if the change is actual or an illusion? Are you going to argue what we observe is false, well then how can you argue to know what reality is actually like. On what grounds do you claim it is unchanging?
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
Subutai
I agree with Parmenides that monism is superior to dualism for explaining that (i.e. something is not hot or cold, but rather just at a particular point upon a scale, temperature in this case), but I reject his claim that the world is unchanging. What exactly are you seeking to debate?
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
There's a real easy way to "prove" any kind of Monism.

"The idea that all of reality is unchanging, and thus all observed change is illusory."

If you define "reality" as "unchanging", then "changes" are "unreal" by definition.

Vedantic Monism works much the same way: brahman is unchanging and, therefore, real. The apparent world is changing and, therefore, a magical illusion (maya).

The question is why should "reality" be defined as unchanging? Implied is that if something "changes" it isn't "true" to itself because it is becoming something else. This is just word games, though.

Hopefully you have a better argument ready to go.
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
Yes.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Are you arguing that Parmenidean Monism is true?
No votes have been placed for this debate.