I understand Parmenides claim about reality being one and unchanging, but I don't understand the reasoning. Are change and many things impossible because they imply a space of nothingness to separate different things, and by its definition nothingness cannot exist?
>giving a fuck about pre-Socratics
>>9377005
It all stems from a simple recognition of the fact that that what-is-not cannot be. This means something always was, generation and destruction are impossible because something has never arisen from nothing, meaning change is impossible and there is in fact only one principle of nature: being.
The only pre-Socratics worth reading are Democritus and Heraclitus.
>>9377238
true pleb advice