What Heraclitus and Parmenides have in common on Reality and Deception

It is usually assumed that Heraclitus is, exclusively, the philosopher of flux, diversity and opposition while Parmenides puts the case for unity and changelessness. However, there is a significant common understanding of things (though in differing contexts), not simply an accidental similarity of understanding. Both philosophers, critically, distinguish two realms: on the one hand, there is the one, common realm, identical for all, which is grasped by the ‘logos that is common’(Heraclitus) or the steady nous (Parmenides) that follows a right method in order to interpret the real. On the other hand, the realm of multiplicity seen and heard by the senses, when interpreted by ‘barbarian souls’, is not understood in its common unity. Analogously, when grasped by the wandering weak nous it does not comprehend the real’s basic unity. In this paper I attempt to defend the thesis that both thinkers claim that the common logos (to put it in Heraclitean terms) or the steady intellect (to say it with Parmenides) grasp and affirm the unity of the real.

Plato’s Parmenides and understanding the One in the philosophy of Plotinus: an oversight by Heidegger?

The present article focuses on the study of the exegesis by Plotinus with regard to the meaning of the ineffability of the one provided in Plato’s Parmenides in the first hypothesis. He places this first ineffable one at the very centre of his system, which would have important implications from both an ontological point of view and with regard to understanding the language. The conception of reality that derives from the ineffability of the first principle and the implications for the nature of philosophical language that this postulate raises will be the centre of our reflections. To shed light on the position set down in the Enneads, we will review the key points based on the original texts that deal with this issue and related critical works. We will also look at the contemporary relevance of this position and its ability to go beyond the Heideggerian critique of metaphysics.