Or, will it be that there is some shared property(-ies) between the two?
Or, will it be that there is some shared property(-ies) between the two? The transaction not to ever stick to the road that posits only aˆ?what isaˆ? was further complex because of the fragmentary document that there's some sort of near union between planning (or once you understand) being (what is present, or can exists, or necessarily is out there): aˆ?...for planning and being are identical thing,aˆ? or aˆ?...for the same is for considering as it is for beingaˆ? (C 4/DK 3). Does Parmenides really suggest in order to make an identity state amongst the two-that reasoning i
by