Question

While contrasting the ontological systems of Parmenides and Kabbalists may seem arbitrary, I hope it will not be fruitless.

For now, I'm aiming to examine one specific concept: Ein Sof. As wiki puts it, sourcing the Zohar:

Ein Sof: Before He gave any shape to the world, before He produced any form, He was alone, without form and without resemblance to anything else. Who then can comprehend how He was before the Creation? Hence it is forbidden to lend Him any form or similitude, or even to call Him by His sacred name, or to indicate Him by a single letter or a single point.

I will attempt to frame this in philosophical terms. Ein Sof is the unconditional, the unknowable. However, convention among Kabbalists suggests that while one cannot proclaim what Ein Sof is, one can make a correct assertion by saying what Ein Sof is not. In fact, that is the only way permissible to assert the qualities of Ein Sof. I'm not an expert on Kabbalah, but as far as I know, this would resemble:

Ein Sof is holy [invalid]
Ein Sof is not evil [valid]
It is at this juncture where the ontological framework of Parmenides seems to offer an interesting counter-perspective. Recall that he asserts:

If you are speaking of what is not, then what you are speaking about is nothing, i.e., is not anything at all. That is, you are not speaking of anything, which is to say that you are not even speaking. For speaking is always speaking of something, and in the (alleged) case of "speaking of what is not" there is nothing that is being spoken of. So there is no such thing as "speaking of what is not."

Formally:

∀x (◇Tx → ◇Ex)
∀x (¬Ex → ¬◇Ex)
∀x (◇Ex → Ex)
∀x (◇Tx → Ex)
∀x (¬Ex→ ¬◇Tx)
Intuitively, it seems that by Parmenides' framework, if one is speaking about what is not, this reduces to nothing. It follows that if one is unable to articulate what Ein Sof is, rather only what it is not, then under Parmenides' logic, Ein Sof must not exist. But I would like to explore, formally, if that's the case.

Question
Is it possible to derive a case where Ein Sof can exist while still observing Parmenides' ontological bounds/rules?

Answer 1

While Parmenides posits that reality is unchanging and that speaking of non-being is nonsensical, Kabbalists articulate what the divine Ein Sof is not. Despite the apparent contradiction, Ein Sof's unchanging nature could align with Parmenides' static being, although resolving their ontological differences might require a more nuanced philosophical approach.

Step-by-step explanation:

To explore whether it is possible to derive a case where Ein Sof can exist while still observing Parmenides' ontological rules, we must consider the nature of existence according to Parmenides and juxtapose it with the concept of Ein Sof in Kabbalah. Parmenides asserted that reality is changeless and that all that exists has always been and is not subject to change; he relied on rational thought over sensory perception. Therefore, according to Parmenides, speaking about what is not (non-being) is akin to speaking about nothing, leading to a logical contradiction. By contrast, Ein Sof is considered to be the unconditional and unknowable, and Kabbalists articulate what Ein Sof is not, rather than what it is, to avoid attributing any form or limitation to the divine.

In seeking compatibility within Parmenides' framework, we face an intellectual challenge as the negative theology of the Kabbalists—expressing Ein Sof through negation—appears at odds with Parmenides' view that speaking of non-being is nonsensical. However, one could argue that Ein Sof's existence is not predicated on change, thereby not contradicting the static being Parmenides describes. Instead, the unknowability of Ein Sof could be seen as aligning with Parmenides' distrust of the senses and the deceptive nature of appearances.

Nevertheless, resolving this tension might be more profound in that the interpretation of Parmenides might need to be reconsidered in light of abstract concepts that are not readily addressed in his ontology. Thus, the existence of Ein Sof may necessitate a more nuanced philosophical synthesis beyond the strict boundaries of Parmenidean thought.