PLATON’UN PARMENİDES ZEMİNİ VE ELEŞTİRİSİ

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 2, 20 - 39, 22.10.2025

Baran Bingöl

Öz

Platon’un diyaloglar ve mektuplar vasıtasıyla sunduğu sisteminde, ciddiye alınması gereken bir Parmenides zemini bulunmaktadır. Platon’un Parmenides eleştirisi, kendi ontolojisini, epistemolojisini, mantığını, etiğini ve estetiğini üzerine inşa ettiği temeli teşkil eder. Dolayısıyla Platon’un sistemini anlamak, kendisinin Parmenides ile olan ilişkisini derinlemesine incelemeyi gerektirir. Bu ilişkiyi irdeleyerek, başta Platon’un sisteminde bir mantık ilkesi olarak “üçüncü halin imkanı” olmak üzere, felsefe tarihinde gözden kaçan bazı noktaları ortaya çıkarmaya çalışıyorum. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmanın ilk bölümü, Platon’un bu mantık ilkesini kurmasını sağlayan ve Sofist diyaloğunda “baba” olarak anılan Parmenides’e odaklanmaktadır. İkinci bölümde ise bu ilkenin diyaloglarda nasıl tezahür ettiği ve Platon’un Parmenides’i eleştirerek “arada” var olan şeylere nasıl bir temel sağladığı ortaya konulmaktadır. Bu çalışma öncelikle Sofist diyaloğunu incelemekle birlikte Parmenides - Peri Phuseôs, Platon - Parmenides, Symposium, Politeia ve Theaitetos diyaloglarına da değinmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Platon , Parmenides , üçüncü halin imkanı , baba katli , felsefe tarihi

Plato’s Parmenidean Background and His Critique Of Parmenides

Öz

Plato’s system, as presented through his dialogues and letters, contains a Parmenidean background that requires serious consideration. His critique of Parmenides forms the foundation upon which he constructs his own ontology, epistemology, logic, ethics, and aesthetics. Consequently, understanding Plato’s system requires a thorough examination of his relationship with Parmenides. This study seeks to reveal overlooked points in the history of philosophy by examining this relationship, most notably the “possibility of the third state (included middle)” as a principle of logic in Plato’s system. Therefore, the first part of this study focuses on Parmenides, referred to as the “father” in the dialogue Sophist, who enabled Plato to establish this principle of logic. The second part reveals how this principle unfolds in the dialogues and how Plato critiques Parmenides to provide a foundation for things that exist “in between.” This study primarily examines the dialogue Sophist but also considers Parmenides - Peri Phuseôs, Plato - Parmenides, Symposium, Politeia, and Theaitetos.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Parmenides , Plato , law of included middle , patricide , history of philosophy

Kaynakça

• Aristotle & L. Minio-Paluello (ed.) (1949). Categoriae et Liber de Interpretatione. Oxford University Press.
• Aristotle & W. D. Ross (ed.) (1924). Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
• Berto, F., & Jago, M. (2023). Impossible worlds. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/impossible-worlds/
• Bingöl, B. (2024). Platon’un Mektupları ile Philosophia Anlayışı Arasındaki İlişki. Felsefe Arkivi, 60: 42-57. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp.1367141
• Brouwer, L. E. J. (1907). Over de grondslagen der wiskunde. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
• Brouwer, L. E. J. (1908). De onbetrouwbaarheid der logische principes. Tijdschr. Wijsbegeerte, 152–158.
• Brown, L. (2011). Negation and Not-being: Dark Matter in the Sophist, in Presocratics and Plato: A Festschrift for Charles Kahn, ed. A. Hermann et al, Parmenides Publishing.
• Curd, P. K. (1998). The legacy of Parmenides: Eleatic monism and later Presocratic thought. Princeton University Press.
• Dummett, M. (1993). The seas of language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• Dummett, M. (1996). Truth and other enigmas. Harvard University, Department of Sanskrit & Indian Studies.
• Diels, H. (1966). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, vol. 1, 6th edn., Ed. Diels, H., Kranz, W. Berlin: Weidmann. -Parmenides, Fragmenta
• du Bois-Reymond, P. (1882). Die allgemeine Functionentheorie. Tübingen: Laupp.
• Fronterotta, F. (2016). La notion d'Intelligence (nous-noein) dans la Grèce antique: Il verbo Noein nel fr. 3 DK di
• Parmenide. Methodos, 16. https://doi.org/10.4000/methodos.4355
• Irani, T. (2022). Perfect Change in Plato’s Sophist, in Victor Caston (ed.), Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Volume 60, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (online edn, Oxford Academic, 18 Aug. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192864895.003.0002
• Kimhi, I. (2018). Thinking and Being. Harvard University Press.
• Leigh, F. (2024). The Theory of Being and the Argument for Forms in Plato’s Sophist. Phronesis, 69(4), 402-438. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685284-bja10096
• Locke, T. (2012). Is Sylvan's Box a Threat to Classical Logic Norms? Florida Philosophical Review 12 (1):32-52.
• Lupasco, S. (1951). Le Principe d’antagonisme et la logique de l’énergie. Prolégomènes à une science de la contradiction, 1re éd. Paris, Hermann & Cie (Actualités scientifiques et industrielles, 1133), 2e éd. Monaco, Le Rocher (L’Esprit et la matière), 1987, préf. de Basarab NICOLESCU
• Nicolescu, B. (2005). Stéphane Lupasco et le tiers inclus. In Revue de Synthèse 126 (2). DOI: 10.1007/BF02965682.
• Plato & Burnet, J. (ed.) (1907). Platonis Opera, 5 vols., Clarendon Press, Oxford. -Alcibiades I -Cratylus -Parmenides -Phaedo -Politeia [Republic] -Sophist -Symposium -Theaetetus -Timaeus -7th Letter
• Priest, G. (2006). In contradiction: A study of the transconsistent (Expanded ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Priest, G., Berto, F., & Weber, Z. (2024). Dialetheism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/dialetheism/
• Proios, John D. (2023). Plato, Sophist 259C7–D7: Contrary Predication and Genuine Refutation. Classical Quarterly 73 (1):66-77.
• Wiitala, M. (2022). The Koinōnia of Non-Being and Logos in the Sophist Account of Falsehood. Areté. Revista de Filosofía 34:235-249.