Parmenides (Part IV) - A Very Young Socrates

Socrates: How is it that you can assert, O Zeno, that if beings are many, then it is necessary for the same things to be both Similar and Dissimilar? That is impossible. For neither can things Dissimilar be Similar, nor things Similar be Dissimilar? Is this not what you asserted?

Zeno: It is.

Socrates: If it is impossible for Dissimilars to be Similars and Similars to be Dissimilars, is it not impossible for many things to exist? For, if there were many they would be subjected to impossibility. Is the only intention of your discourse to demonstrate by contesting all things that the many do not exist? And, do you not consider each of your discourses to be an argument in support of this point of view, thereby thinking you have produced as many arguments as you have produced discourses to demonstrate that the many do not exist? Is this not what you mean, or do I correctly understand you?

Zeno: Your perception of the whole work is excellent.

Socrates: I perceive, O Parmenides, that Zeno not only wishes to connect himself with you in terms of friendship but also to agree with your sentiments in his present discourses. For, Zeno, in a certain respect, has written the same as yourself, although by changing specific details, he endeavours to deceive us into thinking his beliefs are different to yours.

For you, in your poems, argue that the universe is one, and you produce beautiful and good arguments in support of this opinion. But Zeno says that the many are not and delivers many strong arguments in defence of this statement. As you argue, The One is, he argues the many do not exist, and therefore, each of you speaks as if you are saying different things. Although your arguments are nearly the same, at this time, your discourses seem to be beyond our understanding. 

Zeno: Yes, O Socrates, so it is, but you do not perfectly understand the truth in my writing, although, like Spartan dogs, you are excellent in pursuing and tracking the meaning of the arguments. But the most important thing is not observed by you. The written words are not revered from every point of view, they were composed, as you say, with the intention of concealing their real teaching from men, as if I was conducting something of great importance. 

Although you have spoken of something that happens to be the case, the truth of this matter is that these writings were arranged for the purpose of providing specific assistance to the teachings of reason by Parmenides, to help defend against those who seek to cast aspirations by attempting to show Self through the argument that if The One exists, then ridiculous and contrary outcomes must accompany such reasoning of the Self.

The truth of my writing is that it contradicts many opinions, including those who say the many exist. It is useful to show that the theory which defends the existence of the many is accompanied by even more ridiculous consequences than that which argues The One exists if anyone examines both in detail.

You are not aware, Socrates, that these writings were assembled by myself when I was in my youth, through the love of contention, and they were taken from myself, so that I was not able to consult whether or not Self should be presented into the light. 

You are not aware that these writings were not assembled for the desire for notability, as this belongs to a more advanced period of life but through an immature desire for contention. As I say, you do not speculate on a bad reputation.

Plato, The Parmenides

Zeno is showing that it is not possible for the many to thrive when deprived of The One.

The Many is not part of The One.

or

The One (Parmenides)

or 

The Many is part of The One.

or

The One holds The Many in itself.

If The Many is removed from The One, then there is an absurd situation.

Zeno is in the process of ascending to Parmenides, and The Many are in the process of becoming extinct. Because Zeno is in the process, he is caught up in contention. The process of ascending to Parmenides is the process of battling through many arguments that end in negative conclusions. 

Note from the editor of Classical Philosophy