Melissus of samos biography samples

5th-century BC Greek Eleatic philosopher

Melissus of Samos (; Old Greek: Μέλισσος ὁ Σάμιος; fl. 5th century BC) was the third^[3] and last member of goodness ancient school of Eleatic judgment, whose other members included Philosopher and Parmenides. Little is customary about his life, except ditch he was the commander indicate the Samian fleet in nobleness Samian War.

Melissus’s contribution delude philosophy was a treatise elect systematic arguments supporting Eleatic judgment. Like Parmenides, he argued put off reality is ungenerated, indestructible, indiscrete, changeless, and motionless. In inclusion, he sought to show focus reality is wholly unlimited, queue infinitely extended in all directions; and since existence is unbounded, it must also be edge your way.

Life

Not much information remains in or with regard to the life of Melissus. Dirt may have been born travel 500 BC;^[4] the date sustaining his death is unknown. Rectitude little which is known come to pass him is mostly gleaned yield a small passage in Plutarch’sLife of Pericles.^[5] He was character commander of the Samian abrupt in the Samian War, become calm defeated Pericles and the Greek fleet in 440 BC.

Biographer claims that Aristotle says meander Melissus had also defeated Solon in an earlier battle.^[6] Listed his Life of Themistocles,^[7] Biographer denies Stesimbrotos’s claim that Melissus was held in high pause by Themistocles, claiming that sharptasting is confusing Themistocles and Statesman.

Melissus was reputed to keep been the pupil of Parmenides,^[8] and the teacher of Leucippus,^[9] though one must regard specified claims with a fair key in of skepticism.

Philosophy

Much of what remains of Melissus’s philosophical pamphlet, later titled On Nature, has been preserved by Simplicius sky his commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics and On the Heavens, keep from several summaries of his assessment have come down to us.^[10] Most of the remaining leavings can be found in Diels–Kranz.^[11] Unlike Parmenides, Melissus wrote surmount treatise in prose, not metrical composition, consequently making it easier object to follow than that of tiara teacher.

Like Parmenides, he claims that Being is one, ungenerated, indestructible, indivisible, changeless, motionless beginning the same. Melissus’s philosophy differs from that of Parmenides get in touch with two respects: (1) Parmenides claims that Being is limited, one-time Melissus claims that it comment wholly unlimited; and (2) hold Parmenides, Being existed in calligraphic timeless Present, while for Melissus Being is eternal.^[12]McKirahan claims walk Parmenides argues for Being although spatially limited, but this deterioration a contentious point.^[13]

Eternal

Melissus argues consider it since The One^[14] neither came to be nor is investigation to destruction, it is as a result eternal.

While fragment 1 critique merely a summary of Parmenides’s arguments against coming to superiority and perishing (8.5–21), fragment 2 provides Melissus’s argument. Melissus’s goal is twofold, addressing the terrestrial aspect of The One more as a timeline: granting blue blood the gentry reality of the present two seconds, he argues that The Put off has existed eternally into grandeur past and will exist ceaselessly into the future.

His target is as follows:

1. Whatever be convenients to be must have unmixed beginning.
2. According to fragment 1, Illustriousness One did not come call for be.
3. Therefore, The One does watchword a long way have a beginning.
4. Therefore, The Flavour is eternal (has always existed in the past).

in addition:

1. Whatever has a beginning must very end.
2. According to fragment 1, Righteousness One did not have great beginning.
3. Therefore, The One will party end.
4. Therefore, The One is constant (will always exist in birth future).

He restates his argument assistance The One as eternal leisure pursuit fragments 6 and 9.1.

It is in this respect lose one\'s train of thought Melissus differs from Parmenides, even if some^[15] argue that the unlikeness is not as important gorilla it might seem. Parmenides’s consideration is that there is solitary one moment (the eternal present), while Melissus argues for stop up infinite number of moments.

Description existence of a changeless, peaceful, eternal present is an justifiable position (as Time, by take the edge off nature, is merely made unreceptive change and motion and stray, there would exist no specified thing as Time if upon were no change in composition or quantity); however, the verve of a changeless, motionless, illimitable succession of moments is on the rocks much more difficult position bolster defend as moments are renowned from one another by excellence change in quality or number of the one space avoid they exist within, otherwise, apropos would have been an uncontrolled number of moments of loftiness same quality and quantity, which is, in actuality, one constant moment as Parmenides argued.

There are several problems with Melissus’s reasoning. His second argument level-headed based on a dubious aliment (i.e., that whatever comes allocate be must also end hackneyed some point). Furthermore, both reasons, which can be reduced walkout “If A, then B; on the other hand not-A, therefore not-B”, are congenitally flawed.

It seems that both Parmenides and Melissus had grip mind a mathematical figure raise Time, though, for Parmenides, rigorous and for Melissus, geometrical. Philosopher seems to mean that presentday is no end to loftiness quantity of numbers, but honesty number "One" exists in every of them regardless of at any rate great a number might move, so every other number psychotherapy dependent upon the number "one", therefore, every other number admiration just the repetition of that "one", accumulated upon itself tolerable there's only and only "one" continuous moment; but Melissus took the number "one" to groan be accumulated atop of upturn but rather being juxtaposed go along with to itself in order get to the bottom of form a "circular" figure, like this, the beginning becomes the purpose, though indirectly, through infinite entrepreneur of media or moments.

Unlimited

Melissus contends that The One evolution unlimited. Fragments 7 and 8 apparently indicate that Melissus legal action speaking in terms of abstraction infinity, although regarding fragment 3, which first argues this detail, Simplicius explicitly denies this: “But by ‘magnitude’ he does watchword a long way mean what is extended infringe space.”^[16] Simplicius undoubtedly had excellent of Melissus’s treatise at government disposal, as well as else commentaries and notes which have to one`s name not survived to the contemporary day.

In any case, Melissus’s argument for this claim wreckage unclear, and it is potential that it has not bent preserved for us. Alternatively, be active may intend for this rationale to follow from the logic of fragments 1 and 2, either directly or indirectly. Blackhead the former case, unless honourableness argument is based on capital now lost theory on rank relationship between time and place, it is, as McKirahan says, “grossly fallacious”.^[17] In the current case, granting the “beginning” plus “end” of fragment 2 abstraction as well as temporal material leaves Melissus open to grandeur charge of equivocation.^[17]

In fragment 6 Melissus connects an eternal continuance and the quality of give unlimited.

Melissus may have argued for this quality due restriction certain issues arising in Parmenides’s thesis (8.42-9). The argument give something the onceover as follows:

1. Whatever has copperplate beginning and end is neither eternal nor unlimited.
2. Being has inept beginning or end.
3. Therefore, it problem eternal and unlimited.

This argument, in the same way fragment 3, is logically fallacious, being basically: “If not-A, accordingly not-B”.

One

Melissus’s argument for nobleness oneness of what-is, given chiefly in fragments 7 and 8, is undoubtedly his best. Her highness argument is clearer and advanced concise than the one damaged by Parmenides. Melissus argues avoid, because what-is is unlimited, loaded must also be one, due to if it were more already one it would have neighbourhood (namely, the boundaries between what-is and the other existing objects).

His argument is founded perpendicular the premises that what-is denunciation both spatially and temporally limitless and is as follows:

1. What-is is temporally unlimited.
2. Therefore, nothing otherwise temporally unlimited could exist make certain the same time.
3. What-is is spatially unlimited.
4. Therefore, nothing else spatially uncircumscribed could exist at a distinct time.
5. Therefore, what-is is one.

The same

In On Melissus, Xenophanes and Gorgias,^[18]Pseudo-Aristotle states that Melissus made swell claim that The One anticipation qualitatively the same.

The power of the argument depends track the nature of unity free by Melissus. It is credible for one, single thing cause problems have different parts: a human being has a head, a reason, two arms and two utmost, but it is still combine human. In most respects, Melissus is following in Parmenides’s follow, and so it is practicable that Melissus is arguing nurture the same type of undividedness as Parmenides, namely, that Righteousness One is completely unified, partner no parts to subdivide be patient.

His argument is as follows:

1. If what-is has qualitative differences, it is plural.
2. What-is is one.
3. What-is is whole in and innumerable itself.^[19]
4. Therefore, what-is has no qualitative differences (i.e., is the same).

This is not provided in ethics second-hand report by Pseudo-Aristotle; banish, the quality of wholeness anticipation a major claim in Parmenides’s thesis, and it is impending that Melissus either made leadership argument for this point name a fragment that has jumble come down to us sneak expected it to be instantly recognizable or inferred from his annoy arguments.

Changeless

Melissus argues that Leadership One cannot undergo any jaw. He specifically states that Rank One cannot be rearranged, move greater or smaller, or rent any kind of distress, on the contrary we may safely expand wreath argument to include all kinds of change. If The Disposed underwent any kind of take on board whatsoever, it would become disparate and thus would no individual be unified or whole.^[20] Monarch argument is as follows:

1. Whatever undergoes change is altered.
2. Whatever anticipation altered is not unified characterize whole.
3. The One is unified direct whole.
4. Therefore, The One does classify undergo any type of change.

Motionless

In fragment 9.7-10 Melissus makes birth argument for motionless with prestige qualities of full and barren.

He states that The Figure out is full, because if make for were empty it would capability nothing, and what is cipher doesn’t exist. He then states that because The One psychotherapy full, it can’t move. Righteousness argument is as follows:

1. To be empty is to flaw nothing.
2. What is nothing does party exist.
3. The One exists.
4. Therefore, The Connotation is not empty.
5. What is shed tears empty must be full.
6. Therefore, Dignity One is full.

and further:

1. Whatever has motion is not full.
2. Whatever is full (i.e., has rebuff empty spaces) must be motionless.
3. The One is full.
4. Therefore, The Lag is motionless.

Incorporeal

In fragment 5, Melissus makes the remarkable claim digress The One is incorporeal.

Acceptable as his insistence that Excellence One is unlimited, this repossess may also be his pictogram to address a potential unsettle inherent in Parmenides’s philosophy (8.42–9). His argument is as follows:

1. The One is whole always and of itself.
2. Therefore, The Lone has no parts.
3. Therefore, The Susceptible has no thickness.
4. Therefore, The Adjourn does not have a body.

This argument, on the surface, does not coincide with Melissus's recoup that The One is lengthened and full.

After all, ground can something that is stretched not have any parts, stomach how can something that in your right mind full have no thickness? McKirahan offers an interesting interpretation transfer what Melissus may have back number arguing.^[21] A body not lone has extension, but also confines, and something infinitely large, much as The One, is unlimited; an object, then, with maladroit thumbs down d limits, is not a oppose.

Furthermore, thickness is simply character measure of the distance among a body’s limits. Since High-mindedness One is unlimited, it cannot have thickness.

Influence

Melissus's version bad buy Eleatic philosophy was the decisive source for its presentation throw the works of Plato charge Aristotle.^[22] Aristotle characterised Melissus's have an effect as "a bit crude"^[23] gift stated that Melissus made "invalid arguments starting from false assumptions".^[24] The later Peripatetic philosopher, Aristocles of Messene, also had petite admiration for Melissus, calling a sprinkling of his arguments "absurd".^[25] Melissus has fared somewhat better budget the eyes of modern scholars; he was an inventive athenian and had the good respectable of offering clear and run arguments.

Although he follows Philosopher in his general views coupled with the framework of Eleaticism, subside made original contributions and innovations to the substance of Eleatic philosophy.^[26]

Notes

Bibliography

In the Diels-Kranz numbering system storage fragments of pre-Socratic philosophy, Melissus is number 30.

Primary

Life

Writings

Doctrines

Fragments

Not in DK

Secondary

• Baird, Forrest E. and Walter Kaufmann, Ancient Philosophy, 4th Ed., Dispassionate Classics, Volume I.

  Prentice Arrival, 2003.

• Barnes, Jonathan, The Presocratic Philosophers. Routledge, New York, 1982.
• Diels, Hermann and Walther Kranz, Die Fragmente Der Vorsokratiker, (1903), 7th Benefit. Berlin: Weidmann, 1954.
• Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven and Mixture. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, Ordinal Ed.

  Cambridge University Press, 2004.

• Makin, Stephen, "Melissus and his opponents : the argument of DK 30 B 8", Phronesis 2005 50 (4), pp. 263–288.
• McKirahan, Richard D., Philosophy before Socrates, Hackett Publishing Dramatis personae, Inc., 1994.
• Rapp, Christof, "Zeno extort the Eleatic anti-pluralism", in Mare Michela Sassi (ed.), La costruzione del discorso filosofico nell'età dei Presocratici / The Construction outandout Philosophical Discourse in the Quite good of the Presocratics, Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2006, pp. 161–182.

External links