parmenides

Nevertheless, the core of the dialogue is quite simple, where Parmenides discusses the relationship between the One and the Many.

Plato’s Parmenides is all about the mystical inability to resolve this paradox of the existence of unity and parts.

But when authors start slinging around Plato and Aristotle and especially Parmenides willy-nilly alongside modern principles, they're waving a red flag...

What about his Parmenides where he rips to shreds his own golden theory of forms?

Heraclitus denied the reality of stability, and Parmenides denied the reality of change.

Or so is the literal translation of Parmenides that Heidegger insisted on—thinking over.

I wouldn't recommend the Parmenides as one's first step into Plato, it's one of his hardest dialogues.

The irony is that Plato himself arrogantly attempted to outdo his teachers -- most notably Parmenides and Pythagoras -- misrepresented them and caused us to forget the deep truths that they had brought us.

And yes, Parmenides is typically treated as one of the hardest dialogues.

You're basically committing the error of Parmenides all over again.

Heraclitus was before Parmenides and said that everything changes.

Popper's essays on Parmenides are really interesting on this.

Btw, the central concept of Parmenides' philosophy is always translated as "Being", but I couldn't find the original Greek word.

Popper frames Parmenides' philosophy as essentially a conjecture that "change is an illusion", and the history of western science since then as various "research programmes" in response to that.

In essence, my original point is closer to the one of greek philosopher Parmenides.

Parmenides, unless you're really into classical semi-formalized logic and that comes easily as explanation..

Parmenides) are unlikely to have unlikely to have overlapped with Socrates' active years.