TY - JOUR
AU - Lewis, Frank
AB - <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In his great poem, Parmenides uses an argument by elimination to select the correct "way of inquiry" from a pool of two, the ways of is and of is not, joined later by a third, "mixed" way of is and is not. Parmenides' first two ways are soon given modal upgrades – is becomes cannot not be, and is not becomes necessarily is not (B2, 3-6) – and these are no longer contradictories of one another. And is the common view right, that Parmenides rejects the "mixed" way because it is a contradiction? I argue that the modal upgrades are the product of an illicit modal shift. This same shift, built into two Exclusion Arguments, gives Parmenides a novel argument to show that the "mixed" way fails. Given the independent failure of the way of is not, Parmenides' argument by elimination is complete.</jats:p>
         </jats:sec>
TI - Parmenides' Modal Fallacy
JF - Phronesis
DO - 10.1163/156852808X375228
DA - 2009-01-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/brill/parmenides-modal-fallacy-DQ3EjEpvhj
SP - 1
EP - 8
VL - 54
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -