Abstract

On those occasions on which one gives an interpretation of a work both scanty in remains and obscure in meaning I would take it to be appropriate to insist that one's task is not to argue that one's interpretation is certainly correct but rather to argue that it is probably correct. It is accordingly not my task to argue that it is not possible that other interpretations of Parmenides’ Way of Truth are correct. Nor do I increase the likelihood of my own by decreasing that of theirs.I seek to give an interpretation which is rich enough to disclose the springs of monism. I am primarily concerned to show how we may understand those arguments which leave us with the conclusion that there is only one thing to know.