Melissus of samos biography of mahatma

If there are two things in existence, each must limit the extent of the other; there cannot be more than one limitless thing in existence. Thus, Melissus chose a different route to the monism of Parmenides—indeed, according to most interpreters of Parmenides, this route was closed to him since, unlike Melissus, he held that what exists is spatially limited.

But this is a dubious interpretation of Parmenides. Next, Melissus argued that if what exists is one, it cannot have parts and must therefore be incorporeal because any solid body melissus of samos biography of mahatma actual or imaginable parts. Moreover, what exists cannot vary in density since this, according to Melissus, could come about only if one area contained less of being—and hence more of nonbeing—than another, and nonbeing is absolutely nonexistent.

For similar reasons there is no motion, since there is no "give" anywhere in the plenum this is an argument against motion that may not have been used by Parmenides. Every form of change—whether of size, order, or quality—means the coming into existence of something that previously was nothing, or the annihilation of something that exists, and these are ruled out by the first stage of Melissus's argument.

In the eighth fragment Melissus applies his own criteria of existence to the plural beings of the sensible world. If these things, such as air and fire, exist, then they must be just what our senses tell us they are and nothing else. But our senses tell us that they do change into something else. Our senses must therefore be wrong about this; hence, we can conclude that they were wrong initially in telling us that things are many and not one.

The sensible world is therefore illusion. Melissus was the least important of the Eleatics. Zeno's arguments proved more influential than his, and Parmenides was the original genius who pioneered the way. If Melissus has any claim to special historical importance that is not shared by the other Eleatics, it is perhaps that by applying Eleatic criteria to the plural beings posited by his opponents, he produced a formula in Fr.

In the absence of complete texts it is wiser to refrain from pronouncing on Melissus's originality. Aristotle criticized both Parmenides and Melissus for bad arguments Physics a6 and was more severe on Melissus, but perhaps that was because Melissus's clear style made him an easier target. Bibliography Fragments of Melissus's writings in Greek with German translations have been published in Diels-Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 10th ed.

I Berlin, ; English translations, in J. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 4th ed. London: A. In contrast, Melissus conceptualizes eternity as an infinity of moments. Critics of Melissus fault his reasoning on a deductive basis in that he does not solve all the formal problems created by arguing for a changeless, motionless, infinite succession of moments, a position that poses inherent self-contradiction.

For if it had come into being, it would have a beginning for it would have begun to come into being at some time and an end for it would have stopped coming into being at some time ; but, since it neither began nor ended, it always was and shall be and has no beginning nor end; for it is impossible for what is not entire to be always. But as it always is, so it is also without limit in extent.

No thing that has both beginning and end is eternal or without limit. If it were not one thing, it would limit some other thing. For if it were without limit, it would be one; for if there were two, they could not be without limit, one would limit the other. For if it were to change, what there is could not be homogenous, but what is in front would pass away, and what dies not exist would come into existence.

If therefore it were to become different by as much as a single hair in ten thousand years, it would pass away in the whole of time.

Melissus of samos biography of mahatma

The One is full. Therefore, The One is motionless. Incorporeal [ edit ] In fragment 5, Melissus makes the remarkable claim that The One is incorporeal. His argument is as follows: The One is whole in and of itself. Therefore, The One has no parts. Therefore, The One has no thickness. Therefore, The One does not have a body. This argument, on the surface, does not coincide with Melissus's claim that The One is extended and full.

After all, why can something that is extended not have any parts, and how can something that is full have no thickness? McKirahan offers an interesting interpretation for what Melissus may have been arguing. Since The One is unlimited, it cannot have thickness. Influence [ edit ] Melissus's version of Eleatic philosophy was the chief source for its presentation in the works of Plato and Aristotle.

Although he follows Parmenides in his general views and the framework of Eleaticism, he made original contributions and innovations to the substance of Eleatic philosophy. Schofield approximates his birth as ca. Kirk, Raven and Schofield,p. Being is McKirahan, p.