摘要：The passage 140e-141d of the Parmenides dialogue refers us to one of the logical consequences in relation to the “one”, that is, to be out of time, as part of the argumentative demonstration of the Eleatic philosopher by admitting the first hypothesis that “the one is” and the consequences of this to the one itself. Accepting the existence of the one implies, according to the method of analysis used by Parmenides, to check each of the possible hypotheses in these cases, in relation to their predications, for themselves and other things. Equally, the same exercise should be done if the hypothesis is the opposite, “if the one is not.” As we can identify in the structure of the dialogue in this part, two hypotheses are raised in which “the one is” and nine consequences thereof arise; in the first movement (137c-142a), the possible predications for this one are denied, and in the second movement (142b-155e) such predications and their unfolding are recognized. It is from such placement that we develop our analysis on the issue of temporality addressed in the dialogue and its methodological and theoretical implications.↓The passage 140e-141d of the Parmenides dialogue refers us to one of the logical consequences in relation to the “one”, that is, to be out of time, as part of the argumentative demonstration of the Eleatic philosopher by admitting the first hypothesis that “the one is” and the consequences of this to the one itself. Accepting the existence of the one implies, according to the method of analysis used by Parmenides, to check each of the possible hypotheses in these cases, in relation to their predications, for themselves and other things. Equally, the same exercise should be done if the hypothesis is the opposite, “if the one is not.” As we can identify in the structure of the dialogue in this part, two hypotheses are raised in which “the one is” and nine consequences thereof arise; in the first movement (137c-142a), the possible predications for this one are denied, and in the second movement (142b-155e) such predications and their unfolding are recognized. It is from such placement that we develop our analysis on the issue of temporality addressed in the dialogue and its methodological and theoretical implications.↓The passage 140e-141d of the Parmenides dialogue refers us to one of the logical consequences in relation to the “one”, that is, to be out of time, as part of the argumentative demonstration of the Eleatic philosopher by admitting the first hypothesis that “the one is” and the consequences of this to the one itself. Accepting the existence of the one implies, according to the method of analysis used by Parmenides, to check each of the possible hypotheses in these cases, in relation to their predications, for themselves and other things. Equally, the same exercise should be done if the hypothesis is the opposite, “if the one is not.” As we can identify in the structure of the dialogue in this part, two hypotheses are raised in which “the one is” and nine consequences thereof arise; in the first movement (137c-142a), the possible predications for this one are denied, and in the second movement (142b-155e) such predications and their unfolding are recognized. It is from such placement that we develop our analysis on the issue of temporality addressed in the dialogue and its methodological and theoretical implications.↓The passage 140e-141d of the Parmenides dialogue refers us to one of the logical consequences in relation to the “one”, that is, to be out of time, as part of the argumentative demonstration of the Eleatic philosopher by admitting the first hypothesis that “the one is” and the consequences of this to the one itself. Accepting the existence of the one implies, according to the method of analysis used by Parmenides, to check each of the possible hypotheses in these cases, in relation to their predications, for themselves and other things. Equally, the same exercise should be done if the hypothesis is the opposite, “if the one is not.” As we can identify in the structure of the dialogue in this part, two hypotheses are raised in which “the one is” and nine consequences thereof arise; in the first movement (137c-142a), the possible predications for this one are denied, and in the second movement (142b-155e) such predications and their unfolding are recognized. It is from such placement that we develop our analysis on the issue of temporality addressed in the dialogue and its methodological and theoretical implications.↓A passagem 140e-141d do diálogo Parmênides nos remete a uma das conseqüências lógicas em relação ao “um”, isto é, estar fora do tempo, como parte da demonstração argumentativa do filósofo eleata ao admitir a primeira hipótese de que “o um é” e as conseqüências disso para si mesmo. Aceitar a existência do “um” implica, segundo o método de análise utilizado por Parmênides, verificar cada uma das hipóteses possíveis nesses casos, em relação às suas predicações, para si e para outras coisas. Igualmente, o mesmo exercício deve ser feito se a hipótese for oposta, “se o um não é”. Como podemos identificar na estrutura do diálogo nesta parte, duas hipóteses são levantadas em que “o um é” e suas nove consequências; no primeiro movimento (137c-142a), as possíveis predicações para este são negadas, e no segundo movimento (142b-155e) tais predicações e seus desdobramentos são reconhecidos. É a partir desse posicionamento que desenvolvemos nossa análise sobre a questão da temporalidade presente no diálogo e suas implicações metodológicas e teóricas.
其他摘要：The passage 140e-141d of the Parmenides dialogue refers us to one of the logical consequences in relation to the “one”, that is, to be out of time, as part of the argumentative demonstration of the Eleatic philosopher by admitting the first hypothesis that “the one is” and the consequences of this to the one itself. Accepting the existence of the one implies, according to the method of analysis used by Parmenides, to check each of the possible hypotheses in these cases, in relation to their predications, for themselves and other things. Equally, the same exercise should be done if the hypothesis is the opposite, “if the one is not.” As we can identify in the structure of the dialogue in this part, two hypotheses are raised in which “the one is” and nine consequences thereof arise; in the first movement (137c-142a), the possible predications for this one are denied, and in the second movement (142b-155e) such predications and their unfolding are recognized. It is from such placement that we develop our analysis on the issue of temporality addressed in the dialogue and its methodological and theoretical implications.
