THE ITALIAN PHILOSOPHERS.
Parmenides of Elea 504/500 B.C. (Elea in Italy)
Parmenides, who must be a great genius, was the founder of this school. As we already know from the previous lectures, Xenophanes migrated from the Asia Minor to the newly found city state, Elea, in the Southern coast of South Italy, as we have the record to tell us that Xenophanes wrote his celebration poem with 2000 words at the occasion of the city's founding (540 B.C.).
Parmenides was supposed to be born in Eelea and more likely than he studies philosophy under Xenophanes. Therefore, the so-called Italian School was founded by Parmenides and possibly was originated by Xenophanes.
Zeno has been known to us through his many paradoxes, by which Zeno attempted to defend the position of Parmenides, his teacher.
Melissus who came from Samos, the same city state as Pythagoras, was also a younger desciple, who studied under Parmenides in Elea. He was a Navy General and fought with his rather inferior navy battle ships (in both number and size) the famous navy battle against the "undefeatable" Athenian navy in 441 B.C.
It is quite possible for us to pherhaps trace the Eleatic, Italian School of Thought back to Xenophanes: Indeed, Xenophanes said:
What Xenophanes called "'o °ns"‹ho theos‹, i.e. God, without doubt did not take too much to develop into what Parmenides called "to eon"‹to eon‹, i. e. Being, the genuine reality. Take for example,
The mtaphysical question of the One-the Many was now construed by Parmenides as the opposition between sense or opinion (mundane knowledge) and true knowledge of reason: The former is the cogntive organ of the many--the phenomena, while the latter is the cognitive organ for the One.
On the other hand, according to Diogenes Laertius and others, Parmenides was said to be converted to the comtemplative life not by Xenophanes, but by Ameinias, the Phythagorean, who is otherwise totally unkown to us. What does this signify? How can we understand the influences Parmenides had received and the development of Parmenides made in his thought?
Life
According to Diogenes Laertius IX, 21-3 (DK28 a 1:Kirk & Raven 287):
As to 2) and 4) Parmenides' being a Pythagorean, Strabo 6, p. 252 Cas. (DK 28a12) collaborates:
Zeno of Elea 464/460 B.C. (Elea in Italy)
Melissus of Samos 441 B.C. (Samos in Asia Minor, the same as Pythagoras)
General Remarks of the Italian School
It is often said that this so-called Eleatic philosophy was founded by Xenophanes, who was associated with the founding of Elea itself (See the above). Copleston takes the same view about the Eleatic school.
Aristotle also said that Parmenides was Xenophanes' disciple. These dates, except Melissus whose sea battle with the Athenian navy was recorded independently, are based on Xenophanes' date of his poem to celebrate the founding of Elea in 540 B.C. We subtracted 40 years from it for Parmenides and further 20 (altogether 60) years for Zeno, for we have no clue for the dating of the Eleatic philosophers. However, in conjunction with Melissus's acmé, they are not that far way from the truth. Nevertheless, many recently argue against these dates regarding their exactitude.
For example, Plato's later dialogues, Parmenides, is often quoted as being not consistent with the above datings. In Parmenides, Plato portrays that Socrates who was at about 20 years of age met Parmenides, when Parmenides and Zeno visited Athens for the first time. Plato describes that Parmenides who looked like God with white beard was 65 years of age, while Zeno was 40 years old. Although Socrates' first encounter with Parmenides and Zeno in this dialogue particularly regarding its exact content may very well be a product of Plato's creative imagination, the relative ages of these three philosophers could very well be correct. When Socrates was 20 years old, that is 450 B.C., thus Zeno's acme is then 450 B.C. and in consequence Parmenides' is 475 B.C.
Further, from these datings if they were correct, we may bring down the date of Heracleitus' acme to 475 B.C., too.(See the section on Heracleitus in the Ionian-Italian Migrant Philosophers.)
Melissus was born in Samos, the same birth place as Pythagoras. No doubt, therefore, Melissus grew up with the Pythagorean philosophy, together with the tradition of the Ionian natural philosophies, and yet it is interesting that he came all the way from the Asia Minor to Elea in Southern Italy to study under Parmenides. This may indicate that the Eleatic school of philosophy was quite widely known in the Magna Graeca (Great Greece) because of its originality and its revolutionary content.
At that time communication networks must work quite well, since it is said that Parmenides had been influenced by the philosophy of Samos through Xenophanes and Ameinias and yet Parmenides' philosophy was re-exported back to Samos by Melissus. It also indicates that around the time when Melissus wanted to further his study in philosophy, Parmenides and the Eleatic School was so widely known that Melissus was able to choose Parmenides as his teacher by going all the way from Samos, Asia Minor, to the west side of Southern Italy.
Melissus was the Admiral of Samos' navy and revolted against Athens. Pericles lead the unbeatable Athenian Navy and tried to attack the Samosian Navy. Nevertheless, because of a still unknown reason, Pericles withdrew a portion of his ships, the circumstance of which favored Melissus and he won the ship battle with the Athenians. This was so unusual that it was recorded in history.
On the one hand, the Eleatic philosophy seems so abstract that it may appear obsolete in the practical matter, Melissus mastered it well. On the other, Melissus showed himself as a man of practical affairs in that he was politically active, was further a Navy Admiral and won the battle against the world-well known strong Athenian navy. This is an impressive event. Therefore, philosophy was often considered as not being practical, and yet it is, once applied to a particular situation by a given philosopher, indeed very useful and effective. Knowledge is Power!
God hears the whole, sees the whole and thinks the whole.
God moves all things simply by thought and without effort.
God resides in the same place and is not worth moving.
There is, however, the genuis' discovery. The irreconcilable contrast and difference between sense(-perception)‹h aisqhsis‹(he aisthesis) and Reason‹h nous‹(he nous) were well articulated.
Let us examine Parmenides' revolutionary turn in the history of Western philosophy.
PARMENIDES of Elea (500 B.C.)
We have four references about Parmenides' biography, but as far as the identifiable date is concerned, it is not so quite unambiguous.
Parmenides, the son of Pyres, was a pupil of Xenophanes ...Though a pupil of Xenophanes, he did not follow him. He associated also, as Sotion recorded, with the Pythagorean Ameinias, son of Diochaitas, a poor but noble man, whom he preferred to follow (philosophically). When Ameinias died, Parmenides, who came of a distuighished family and was rich, built a shrine to him. It was by Ameinias rather than Xenophanes that he was converted to the contemplative life ‹eis 'hsuciau proetprapah‹...He is said also to have legislated for the citizens of Elea, as Speusippus records in his owrk On Philosophers.
1) By this description by Diogenes Laertius, we know that, although Parmenides might start his learning of philosophy (love of wisdom=pursuit of knowledge) with Xenophanes, interestingly his philosophical eye-opening experience must have occured with his assoication with Ameinias, the otherwise unkown Pythagorean.
2) As to his own philosophical investigation, however, Parmenides was supposed to follow more Ameinias, the otherwise totally unknown Pythagorean, than Xenophanes.
This relationship of Parmenides to Xenophanes and Ameinias in philosophical thought and possibly method as well as the way of life should be more investigated in details and we shall do so in the section of Parmenides' philosophy.
3) Parmenides apparently came from a rather wealthy and distinguished family in Elea.
4) Parmenides not only engaged in philosophical inquiry, but also was active in politics (as a very respectable, significant legislator).
In this respect of Parmenides' involvement in politics, Plutarch adv. Colot. 32, 112A. States:Parmenides set his own state in order with much admirable laws that the government yearly swears its citizens to abide by the laws of Parmenides.
As to the testimony that Parmenides was a Pythagorean, it is not completely inconceivable, as geographically Elea was located very closely to Croton and Metapontium where the Pythagoreans were strongly active, but also it seems evidenced by his own experience in his own poem (cf. The According to the Pythagoreans, the concept of limit or determinate, i.e., peiras‹peiras‹ was indeed the top of the two fundamental principles of 10 contraries (Aristotle, Metaphysics A5,985b23).
Besides "peiras"‹"peiras"‹("limit" or "determinate"), Parmenides' to eon‹to eon‹(Being) is said to be "to ¢en"‹to hen‹("One)" which is the third from the top, left side of the Opposite above) is stressed by Parmenides to be "akinhton"‹akinéton‹(motionless), "en tautw menon¾æen tautw menon"‹("resting in the same place"), which are also appear on the left side of Pythgoreans' 10 Opposites. Kiek & Raven consider that these features of Being must have been influenced by Ameinias. This question is more philosophical than historical, so we shall pick them up more carefully in his philosophy.
According to Diogenes Laertius ix, 23 (DK28A1), Parmenides' acmé must be around 500 B.C.:
Parmenides flourished in the sixty -ninth Olympic Games.
Parmenides' and Zeno's visit to Athens was not only told by Pythodorus, who used to live suberb of Athens and that Pythodorus's story about their visit is ultimately introduced by Antiphon! This is one of Plato's typical device to make sure that Plato is not responsible for the accuracy of the account for the story. Therefore, it is more likely a fiction than a actual fact which occurred.
On the other hand, Dogenes's account mentioned above must have come from Apollodorus, whose data of Parminedes is more likely based on the founding of Elea (540 B.C.), in which Parmenides was supposed to be born. Since Zeno was said to be born, when Parmenides "flourished" Plato's account, as attractive as it may sound, is to be rejected and Parmenides' acmé should be around 500 B.C.
Parmenides wrote his philosophical thought exclusively in hexameter verse (this tradition could trace back to Xenophanes and was followed by Empedocles, the earliest Revivalist Natural Philosopher). With the exception of the allegory of the poem (and perhaps also certain passages in the 'Way of Seeming,' in which divine gifueres were introduced), his sujbect-matter is of the most prosaic a it is about the metaphsical question and the presentation of his logical arguements. According to Kirk & Raven, Parmenides' "diction (being far from being poetical) is often exceedingly obscure!"
Simplicius, who knew that at his days, the manuscripts are rarely available, transcribed the large section of Parmenides' The Way of Truth" from Sextus Empiricus and preserved the writing of this great, unchallengeable mind in his Commentaries on Aristotle.
It is worth noting that Parmenides's writings among those of the Pre-Socratic philosophers' have been available to us as the largest in quantity and almost complete. This is on the one hand due to Parmenides' ingenious philosophical insight, which irrevocably gave the philosophers of the time such a shocking impact that the fragments which we possess must come from the much later sources (mainly Simplicius‹through Sextus Empiricus) were very well preserved and reliable. It is on the other hand due to the fact that the power of logic hitherto unkown which is revealed in Parmenides' argument.
Through Parmenides' philosophically profound, undeniable influences on the philosophers (particularly Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Leucippus and Democritus) and their way of doing philosophy (whom I call the "revivalists of natural philosophy"), we are able to guess what a great shock it was to those who simply assumed, by following Thales and Anaximenes, reality is in change and it is the many rather than one.
According to Diels, one of the editor's Die Vorsokratiker (edited by Diels and Kranz and translated into English by Kirk and Raven) Almost 90% of one of his philosophical poem written with the hexameter verse called, The Way of Truth," is preserved. Particularly this Way of Truth clearly reveals Parmenides' essential thought.
The power of logic explicitly used by Parmenides was indeed an eye-opening experience to many philosophers and sophists. Instead of trusting senses, Parmenides showed how inevitable it was for the philosopher to have the courage to go beyond and sometimes against sense experience and rather follow the rational reasoning.
The Miletian (Ionian) philosophers sought the principle‹'h arch‹(hé arché) of the universe in the concrete material substance which is perceivable by the senses (e.g., Thales' Water or Anaximenes' Air). It is a material substance ("hé ousia" [substance] is "that which becomes the subject of a proposition and does not become the predicate"(the opposite to to ¢uporhmenon‹substratum‹the basic conception of this hypochémenon came from Anaximandros' "to apeiron"‹"to apeiron"‹(Indeterminte). Should we pursue the direction of substance as "substratum", then Aristotle's definition of "substance" will be "the being which exists by itself and does not need anything else for its existence"‹the Cartesian definition.)
As quoted in the footnote 4, the beginning of The Way of Truth clearly indicates that, in the spirit of the Migrant Philosophers such as Xenophanes, Pythagoras and Heracleitus, Parmenides was well aware that there exists the unbridgeable deep abyss between the opinions or seemings of the mortal and the genuine truth which philosophy as the pursuit of knowledge aims at. This also discloses that Parmenides has to describe the genuine philosophical approach to the Way of Truth via the Goddess and her divine power of prophesy, although his argument is a validly logical, for the Truth is always hidden to the blind eye of the mortal and is never understood by any other than reason or thought (=nous).
Being exists;
These two are the self evident, thus absolutely indubitably true axioms.
1) Being is one and self identical with itself (in Oness or unity, therefore, not many).
What we know through our sense experience is thus to be viewed by Parmenides as a Mere Illusion or opinion.
Thus Being, according to Parmenides, is the sole Reality which is one, continuous, indivisible, qualitatively equal, of no generation nor corruption, no locomotion, no condensation, no rarefication. This Being is logical and solely comprehensible by Reason. While our senses are fallible and correspond to the opinion(he doxa), our Reason being infallible correlates itself to genuine Knowledge(epistémé).
Like Parmenides, Zeno was supposed to be born in Elea, when Parmenides was at his acmé. Zeno followed Parmenides and he was the favorite disciple of Parmeniides.
Zeno are well known for his invention of dialectic (hé dialektiké techné) and many paradoxes which have his name on.
He was remembered as the master of dispute to demonstrate that, once we accepted the assumptions of our common sense, we inevitably had to accept the logical consequences of the absurdity and contradiction in common sense in order to show that Parmenides' Being (to eon) is the genuine reality. We know very little of his life. As the most faithful student of Parmenides, Zeno accompanied Parmenides everywhere and travelled many city states. However, it must be more likely that through his effective argumentation, Zeno contributed to make clear the unfeasibility of Ionian natural philosophy, which presupposed the motion of generation and corruption (condensation and rarefication) and "one and many".
In order to go from A to B, one has to go through infinite numbers of the intermediaries, i.e., within a ceratin finite time, we have to go through a infinite number of points. This is impossible.
An argument that Achilles with twice the speed can never pass the tortoise. The argument of the standstill of a flying arrow. These are only two of the paradoxes resulted from the assumption of the infinite divisibility of a finite line and the specialization of time.
In the history of philosophy, there is always a leap in the development of thinking and this is considered as one of the prime examples for this. Although the Eleatic thinking was not perfect, it was a courageous leap to go and follow from the apodeictic true axioms wherever the arguments might lead, even far beyond the limit of human experience and how contrary the conclusion of the arguments may be to experience.
Melissus developed Parmenides' thought a step further from the proposition, "Being is, while Non-being is not." In stead of following his detailed arguments, here we will attempt to comprehend how Parmenides' and Melissus' thoughts differ.
The most important contribution by the Eleatic School to the history of the Western philosophy is the clear establishment of the superiority of Reason (ho nous) both as the principle of Being and of cognition at the same time, while Parmenides, Zeno and Melissus made knowledge of sense experience not only inferior (to that of Reason) but not even worth the name of knowledge at all, because sense experience provides us mere illusion, not truth. This was the explicit beginning of the long tradition of Rationalism in Western philosophy.
The most detailed account of Parmenides is given as the quotation from Antiphon: 127AAccording to Antiphon's account, Pythodorus said that Parmenides and Zeno once came to Athens for the Great Panathenaia. Parmenides was wel adavnce in years-
about sixty-five--and very grey, but a fine-looking man. Zeno was then nearly forty, and tall and handsome; he was said to have been Parmenides' favorite. The y were staying at Pythodorus' house outside the city-wall in the Ceramicus. To there went Socrates, and several others with him, in the hope of hearing Zeno"s treatisie; for this was the first time Parmenides and Zeno had brought it to Anthens. Socartea was still very young at that time.
We also know from Xenophon as well Plato, Socrates died 399 B.C. Thus, he was born in 470/469 B.C. Should we assume "sfocra neon"‹"sphodra neon"‹("very young") could be under 25, the meeting should take place around 450-455 B.C. Thiis makes Parmenides birth at about 515-510 B.C. The problem of this data has some problem. 1) This diialogue is one of Plato's later works, 2) When Socrates appears in Plato's dialogue, the place and the time are usually common knowledge among Plato's friends and followers. Thus, 3) When it is likely a fiction, Plato makes a special device that it derives from the secondary or even more remote sournce.
Philosophy
First of all, such a principle as water or air is a material substance or matter and is primarily referred to by the subject term of the judgement (i.e., something definite and particular) with its unique properties (particular qualities).
Secondly, it is by our sense experience that such a material substance is given, i.e., is known. Experience by sense as the means and source of knowing (such a material principle) is by nature not infallible, therefore is finite, and uncertain. Thus experience is not certain as a way of knowing. In other words, experience can not validate the reality of its object at all.
Parmenides and the philosophers of the Eleatic school sought the knowledge which is infallible, necessary, indubitable and universally valid. If they were alive in the post Renaissance like Descartes, they would have searched this apodeicticity in the way or kind of knowing itself. Parmenides however sought in the special kind or the unique way of Being which should provide such apodeictic knowledge. If we may say in the Aristotelian fashion, Parmenides and his school looked for the immutable, self-identical principle not in a material substance as a substratum(the subject of the proposition), but in the predicate of the judgement. It is not just a predicate, but the widest, the most encompassing, the most fundamental predicate of all, namely "Being"(to eon).Come now, and I will tell thee‹and do thou hearken and carry my word away‹the only way of enquiry that can be known of (by reason=nous): the one way, that it is and cannot not-be, is the path of Persuasion, for it attends upon Truth; the other , that it is-not and needs must not-be, that I tell thee is a path altogether unthinkable. For thou couldst not know that which is-not nor utter it; for to be‹to eon‹ (i.e., what exists and is real) and to think‹to noein‹ (i.e., what is known by reason=nous ) are one and the same.
Thus when we make a subject out of this Being, its predicate of the proposition is none but Being itself: Being is Being. This is tautologous and is apodeictically true, i.e., absolutely necessarily and universally true. On the other hand, nothing (=Non-being, to mé eon‹to mh eon) does not exist. This, too, is apodeictically true. For anything exists (i.e., is) at all, it must not come into Being, nor perish into Non-being. It must have existed and exist and will exist, is absolutely immutable and no change whether this is locomotion or alteration. It is also true that ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes into Being).
Non-being does not (exists).
From these two axioms, several propositions(theorems) derive immediately:
For if many Beings should exist, then Non-being must also exist between these many Beings. This is contradictory to the basic axioms.
2) Being is qualitatively one and the same everywhere(neither dense nor thin, too).
For if it were, there must be Non-being mixed with Being, which is contradictory to the basic axioms.
3) No alternation, nor locomotion, i.e., no change, does not exist.
For if change should exist, it presupposes that Non-being exists, which is contradictory to the axioms.
Therefore, our universe as reality is one, self same, thus does not change.
Therefore, according to Parmenides:
Being (To Eon) is Rational (=known by Reason‹Noésis‹) and what is Rational (=known by Reason‹Noésis‹) is Being (To Eon).
This thesis of identity of Being and knowledge became one of the most important principles that the philosopher must to attack to solve. Probably the most successful attempt to solve this question to our satisfaction was later made by Hegel in his dialectic thinking at the culmination of the Western Philosophy. In case of Hegel, the formulation was:Was vernunftig ist wirklich, und was wirklich ist vernunftig.
(What is rational is real, and what is real is rational.)
Our common sense purports what is known through the senses is real. Against this conception of Reality known by sense experience, for the first time in the history of the Western philosophy, Parmenides was supposed (We pointed out the possibility of Heracleitus to have done this earlier) to make an attempt to transcend the mundane, empirical phenomena to the ultimate Reality. This ultimate Reality can be known only through reason‹to noein‹, unmixed with the senses or experience, i.e., by means of pure intuitive reason alone.
To briefly elaborate this identity of Being and Thought:
Only that which is known by Pure Thought, or is grasped by Reason‹'h nous‹, does genuinely and immutably exists. In other words, it is impossible for us to think of that which is not (=Non
being), but we can only think and comprehend by Reason or Thought that which is (=Being) alone.
In consequence, to Parmenides, who might be concerned about the radical nature of his own thought, Being (to eon) is not an object of our mundane experience, but is transcendent from it. Therefore, Parmenides must have only Goddess reveal and prophesize this Reality as Truth in the form of poetry (although it is not uncommon to express philosophical thought in verse rather than in prose at that time)....The only "mythos"following the Way to tell is that Being is; and on this Way are full many signs that Being does not come into being and is imperishable, for it is the whole, immovable and not unaccomplished. It was not, nor shall it be, since it is always now, all at once, one, contiuous....
Zeno of Elea (464/460 B.C.)
Zeno attempted to show the contradictions and inconsistencies in our common sense knowledge.According to our common sense, the world of experience be the sole reality. By demonstrating our common sense knowledge as paradoxical, Zeno exerted himself in proving that Parmenides' Being is the only genuine Reality. Zeno not only was responsible for devising the so
called "indirect proof", but also he has been universally considered as the founder of the "dialectic".
For example, in stead of arguing that Being is one, Zeno argued that, if Being were many, as our common sense dictates, many contradictions would logically follow, e.g. the existence of Non
being, or the non-existence of motion from that premiss, for example. The latter cannot be, therefore, Being (=Reality) must be one. Or e.g., if we agree that Being (=Reality) is many, then we must conclude from this that Being is both finite and infinite at the same time. For in order to distinguish one Being from the other Being, there must be another Being in-between and ad infinitum.
Aristotle held that Zeno was the inventor of dialectics. What does this mean? Zeno formulates the proposition (B) which is the negation of (A) to be demonstrated to be true. Then he tries to draw a logical consequence (C) from (B) which turns out to be self contradictory (always false). Thus since (C) as self contradictory resulted from the premiss (B), in order for (C) to be true, (B), the opposite of (A, i.e.in stead of (B), that is (A) and not (B), but the negation of B), must be postulated as its premiss as true. This sense of dialectic must be clearly different from the dialectic which was employed by Socrates.
Zeno consciously employed the logical method for demonstration of the point at stake, which Parmenides implicitly conceived of. By means of Zeno's endeavor, logic became a conscious, deliberate activity of perusing truth and knowledge.
For example, Aristotle reproduced Zeno's argument for the impossibility of motion in his Physics 6-9:
However, this was at the same time the beginning of the human overconfidence in the European Reason. In the History of the Western Philosophy, we must wait for Nietzsche until this dominance of and blind trust in Reason was critically confronted.
While Zeno negatively denies the mundane doxa (opinion) of the mortal beings that is solely based on our experience, Melissus positively affirms Being itself.
Melissus of Samos (441 B.C.)
One of Parmenides' descriptions of Being states that Being is finite (i.e., not indeterminate). According to Parmenides, that Being is atelés (without-telos=infinite, limitless) means that Being is incomplete (atelés means purposeless or endless) and something lacking. Thus Being is shaped as spherical, thus limited, and qualitatively equal everywhere, and is finite.
Against Parmenides' thesis that Being (to eon) is finite, Melissus held that Being is infinite. For since there is no generation, nor corruption possible for Being, Being must have neither the For if Being is finite at least in the temporal sense, Being must have the beginning and the end in time. This, according to Melissus, does not make sense. Therefore,Being must be infinite at least in the temporal sense, i.e., at least temporally infinite, thus timeless.
The second point Melissus added to Parmenides' thought was that, in addition to Non-being, there exists no "void" (to kenón), while Parmenides had implicitly considered Non-being be void. From this, it must be more rigorously concluded that there is no motion (whether it is locomotion, or condensation, or rarefication).
Thirdly, Melissus was also to have said that Being does not suffer pain, or enjoys pleasure, for, according to Melissus, nothing can be added or subtracted from Being.
It is also worth noting that, according to the Eleatic philosophy, truth is for most parts covered up by illusion, prejudices and pre-conceived ideas. In order to "uncover" truth, we must free ourselves from our common sense and its conviction. Thus it was established that common sense is not conducive to philosophical inquires, but rather something which is to be critically questioned and from which we must liberate ourselves in order to pursue philosophy and philosophical knowledge.
The Eleatic philosophy established the two value logic which even absolved dialectic until the end of German Idealism.
The Eleatic philosophy further demonstrated that we as a philosopher must have the courage and trust in logical inference whatever its consequence may be, as long as we start with truth as premisses.
The Eleatic philosophers had a very clear conception of Being, which is not material, but an abstract concept derived from the "predicate term concepts."
Many of the prominent historians of the Western philosophy in the past contend that Parmenides' Being is material and consider him a materialist, who holds that the ultimate Being is matter or material substance. This contention is not only wrong, but also is utterly misleading and misses the most important contribution of Parmenides' philosophical endeavor to the history of the Western philosophy. Parmenides was well aware of how unconventional and anti-common sense belief his philosophical wisdom was. As mentioned previously, that was why Parmenides had to use epic, not prose, to express his philosophical ideas and felt even the necessity to have the Goddess speak about his philosophical ideas as her prophecies.
It is as erroneous to call Parmenides a materialist as Anaximander. It is wrong to underestimate such great geniuses' contributions which were way ahead of their times.
The Being as an entity, that which is, and the Being which as a principle makes an entity exist are not yet articulated at the time of the Eleatic School.