through all words
Recognizing the primordial role of language and
understanding in Parmenides’ thought, the author analyses some passages in
Parmenides’ text which are relevant to this conception. Semantico-syntactic and
rhetoric analysis of the text offers new interpretational possibilities and
helps to evaluate the proposed interpretations.
For fr. B 1 l.3 the reading ἔπῃ “words, speech” is suggested instead of the widely
accepted conjecture ἄστη. The immediate context as well as the whole intention
of Parmenides’ poem are good compatible with this reading.
Parmenides’ statements about the necessary
connection between sayng/thinking and being are analysed. Whereas in B 2, l. 7-8 and B 8, l. 8-9 this thesis is
clearly expressed, the passages B 3, B 8 l.34, and B 6 l.1-2 containing syntactially
ambiguous infinitives and participles are connected with interpretatiolnal
problems. The thesis about the necessary connection between sayng/thinking and
being is used by Parmenides as an argument for his main thesis, the exclusion
of non-being which cannot be spoken or thought of. All our words and
thoughts necessarily concern the being,
also false doxic speaking and thinking is related to being. Here Parmenides has
primarily in view the so called thetic or with other words pre-predicative
statements, in which something is posed – and it must be being – about which
then false or true predications can be made in so called categorical
statements, predicating about the subjects which have already been
referentially identified by previous thetic statements.
As for B 8 l. 12, rhetoric principle of so called
ringcomposition supports the manuscriptal reaging ἐκ μὴ ἐόντος. In connection with Parmenides’ concept of φάος καὶ νύξ “Light/Day and Night” as
constitutive for human doxic world and being of equal rank (interpretation of B
8 l. 53-54
and B 9) the difference between Parmenides and Heraclit in their conception of
complementary contrastives is discussed.