verse, and neglect their differences, we shall find that what
they all have in common is simply “being.” Being then is a
general idea, or concept. It is a thought, and not a thing.
Parmenides, therefore, actually placed the absolute reality
of things in an idea, in a thought, though he may have con-
ceived it in a material and sensuous way. Now the cardinal
thesis of idealism is precisely this, that the absolute reality,
of which the world is a manifestation, consists in thought,
in concepts. Parmenides, on this view, was an idealist.
Moreover, Parmenides has clearly made the distinction be-
tween sense and reason. True Being is not known to {49}
the senses, but only to reason, and this distinction is an es-
sential feature of all idealism. Materialism is precisely the
view that reality is to be found in the world of sense. But
the proposition of Parmenides is the exact opposite of this,
namely, that reality is to be found only in reason. Again,
there begins to appear for the first time in Parmenides the
distinction between reality and appearance. Parmenides, of
course, would not have used these terms, which have been
adopted in modern times. But the thought which they ex-
press is unmistakably there. This outward world, the world
of sense, he proclaims to be illusion and appearance. Re-
ality is something which lies behind, and is invisible to the
senses. Now the very essence of materialism is that this
material world, this world of sense, is the real world. Ideal-
ism is the doctrine that the sense-world is an appearance.
How then can Parmenides be called a materialist?
How are we to reconcile these two conflicting views of Par-
menides? I think the truth is that these two contradictories
lie side by side in Parmenides unreconciled, and still mutu-
ally contradicting each other. Parmenides himself did not
see the contradiction. If we emphasize the one side, then
Parmenides was a materialist. If we emphasize the other
side, then he is to be interpreted as an idealist. In point
of fact, in the history of Greek philosophy, both these sides
of Parmenides were successively emphasized. He became
the father both of materialism and of idealism. His imme-
diate successors, Empedocles and Democritus, seized upon
the materialistic aspect of his thought, and developed it.
The essential thought of Parmenides was that Being can-
not arise from not-being, and that Being neither {50} arises
nor passes away. If we apply this idea to matter we get what
in modern times is called the doctrine of the “indestructibil-
ity of matter.” Matter has no beginning and no end. The
apparent arising and passing away of things is simply the
aggregation and separation of particles of matter which, in
themselves, are indestructible. This is precisely the position
of Democritus. And his doctrine, therefore, is a materialis-
tic rendering of the main thought of Parmenides that Being
cannot arise from not-being or pass into not-being.It was not till the time of Plato that the idealistic aspect of
the Parmenidean doctrine was developed. It was the genius
of Plato which seized upon the germs of idealism in Par-
menides and developed them. Plato was deeply influenced
by Parmenides. His main doctrine was that the reality of
the world is to be found in thought, in concepts, in what
is called “the Idea.” And he identified the Idea with the
Being of Parmenides.But still, it may be asked, which is the true view of Par-
menides? Which is the historical Parmenides? Was not