While reading about Parmenides in A Presocratic Reader, I found it interesting to see Parmenides’ opposing views and opinions on basic metaphysical thoughts and philosophies. He describes why he believes there can be no truth in metaphysics, and how knowledge cannot be found in ideas or theories that are unthinkable. By this, he is described to believe that he doesn’t believe you can have true knowledge on a subject if the subject could undergo a qualitative change.
In the passage on pages 57-58, when discussing paths to knowledge and bringing up “paths of persuasion” he says “This indeed I declare to you to be a path entirely unable to be investigated.” He is saying that ideas that are built off of persuasion or opinion, rather than truth and fact, can’t be explained, proven or backed up with reasoning. He believes you would have no way of going about these abstract ideas in a way to gain any knowledge from them.
To a certain extent, I understand what he means by this. For example, it is hard to declare that anyone has a vast amount of knowledge about God, because the idea of God is abstract, and cannot be proven or explored by facts, simply on opinion. However, I believe that when the mind questions abstract ideas beyond our physical surroundings, we expand our knowledge by expanding our mind’s logic, creativity, and comprehension of what’s around us.