Question

From the premise that something exists ("It is"), Parmenides deduces that it cannot also not exist ("It is not"), as this would involve a logical contradiction. It follows therefore that a state of nothing existing is impossible—there can be no void. Something cannot then come from nothing, and so must always have existed in some form.

I have two questions from above:

1. What I can't follow is how did he deduce above that nothing existing is impossible? Let's assume it exists. Then based on above it had to imply that it would not be possible for nothing to not exist right? But still I don't see how the conclusion was made that nothing existing is impossible.
2. Finally in the last sentence, how does he deduce that Something cannot then come from nothing? It is written in a way like it follows from previous paragraph, but how?

Answer 1

1. Parmenides deduced that nothing existing is impossible because, from the premise that something exists ("It is"), the concept of non-existence ("It is not") leads to a logical contradiction, violating the principle of non-contradiction.

2. Parmenides concluded that something cannot come from nothing based on the impossibility of nothing existing. If nothing could exist, it would contradict the initial premise that something exists. Therefore, a state of nothingness cannot precede the existence of something.

Step-by-step explanation:

Parmenides' argument begins with the premise that something exists ("It is"). From this, he derives the negation of existence ("It is not") as a logical contradiction. To understand this, let's use basic logic: if we assume that nothing exists, then the statement "It is not" implies non-existence, which contradicts the initial premise that something exists ("It is"). Therefore, Parmenides concludes that the state of nothing existing is impossible, establishing the necessity of eternal existence.

Now, in the second part, Parmenides reasons that something cannot come from nothing. This follows from the earlier deduction. If nothing could exist, it would imply a state of non-existence preceding the existence of something. However, as Parmenides has already established that a state of nothing existing is impossible, it logically follows that something must have always existed in some form. The idea is that existence is eternal, and there is no point at which something could emerge from absolute nothingness.

In summary, Parmenides' argument rests on the principle of non-contradiction and the logical necessity of eternal existence. The impossibility of nothing existing leads to the conclusion that something cannot come from nothing, forming a cohesive philosophical stance against the emergence of existence from a state of non-existence.