If Being is finite...
Jonathan read this to us at breakfast a couple of days ago.
From Melissus ("the Samian disciple of Parmenides," disagreeing here with Parmenides, who had declared that Being is spatially finite):
Exactly. But is Melissus guilty of equivocation--of being tricky by using the same word to mean different things--or is he pointing out that the other side uses equivocation?
We all agreed we'd have to think about this further--except the eleven-year-old, who declared himself too sleepy to think about it at all. Ever.
From Melissus ("the Samian disciple of Parmenides," disagreeing here with Parmenides, who had declared that Being is spatially finite):
If Being is finite, then beyond being there must be nothing: being must be bounded or limited by nothing."Nothing, or nothingness," said the almost-thirteen-year old.
But if being is limited by nothing, it must be infinite and not finite. There cannot be a void outside being, "for what is empty is nothing. What is nothing cannot be."
Exactly. But is Melissus guilty of equivocation--of being tricky by using the same word to mean different things--or is he pointing out that the other side uses equivocation?
We all agreed we'd have to think about this further--except the eleven-year-old, who declared himself too sleepy to think about it at all. Ever.
Posted 
<< Home