2

1

BEING AND NOTHINGNESS

Name:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Question 2: Does being have an opposite?

According to Parmenides, being does not have an opposite. In his poem where the narrator is addressed by a goddess, we learn that “being can and must be the true object of thought.” Parmenides rejects the ordinary thinking where people take “being” as the opposite of “nothing” or “non-being” since this is a notion rejected by the goddess. In that case, there cannot be ‘nothing’ not only because the goddess emphasizes on it, but also because in our usage of the term ‘nothing’ suggests that there is indeed something. In other words, thinking about ‘nothing’ will actually make us realize that we are thinking about ‘something’ and which is in existence. Therefore, Parmenides can conclude that being is and cannot be an opposite to the concept of ‘nothing.’

In the poem, Parmenides states that the fact that the statement of ‘the true object of thought’ is announced by a goddess. To give further illustrations that the “being” has no opposite, there is the experiment of thinking about nothing. With this experiment, thinking about “nothing” would perhaps be thinking about an empty space, endless darkness, black hole, etc. However, one cannot think of something that “is not.” This is indicative of the fact that the thought of “nothing” is a form of self-deception. Thus, we can only think about something that is in existence, and it is practically impossible to thing about something that “is’ not.

Therefore, “being” does not have an opposite, and this is simply because the concepts that would have made perfect opposites are dismissed as incoherent, self-deceptive, impossible, and self-contradictory. “Nothing” or “non-being” are dismissed because they seemingly are non-existent, and hence cannot become opposite of being. There is also the notion of something coming into existence and going out of existence. These too are dismissed and this leaves “being” without an opposite.