agnosticisme.xyz

Version Française

Title

Philosophy, a majestic edifice build on sand.

Essai philosophique, Parution ; Août 2025

Western philosophy, in all its grandeur, may well rest on a fundamental misconception. Like a conceptual cathedral built stone by stone over centuries, philosophy appears impressively solid. Yet when we dig to its foundation, we find unexpectedly shifting ground. This article defends the following thesis: Western philosophy is built on an initial conceptual error rooted in the opposition between Parmenides and Heraclitus, an error that distorts every subsequent attempt to think Being.

I. The Beginning: Parmenides and Heraclitus

Philosophy begins with a dizzying question: What is Being? It seems simple, almost innocent—but hiding beneath it is a bottomless difficulty. To ask this question already presupposes that Being is something we can think, grasp, define. That presupposition is the original mistake we aim to expose. Two figures stand at the origin of Western thought: Parmenides, thinker of immutability, and Heraclitus, thinker of perpetual flux. Parmenides, in his poem On Nature, makes a radical claim: "Being is, and non-being is not." From this, he deduces that Being must be one, immutable, eternal, homogeneous. Anything we perceive as change or becoming is mere illusion. Only reason can access the truth: Being cannot come into being or pass away, for that would mean it emerges from non-being—a logical impossibility. Thus, change is impossible. Parmenides’ language is rigorous, nearly mathematical. But it's also poetic, mystical in its own way. He divides human paths into two: the way of truth (aletheia) and the way of opinion (doxa). Sensory perception belongs to the latter and is inherently deceptive. For Parmenides, the moment one speaks of something becoming, one has already fallen into contradiction. Heraclitus, by contrast, asserts that change is the essence of reality. "Everything flows," he says. "You cannot step twice into the same river." For him, Being is inseparable from tension, conflict, transformation. The logos—the rational principle of the cosmos—is dynamic. Identity is a fleeting moment in an ongoing metamorphosis. More than a thinker of movement, Heraclitus is a thinker of opposition. The world is composed not of stable entities but of opposing forces constantly colliding: day and night, war and peace, fullness and void. Unity exists only through conflict. The world is fire, ever-consuming, ever-renewing. These opposing views laid the groundwork for centuries of dialectics. But the deeper problem is this: both thinkers assume that Being can be conceptualized. Whether as unchanging unity or as perpetual becoming, they treat Being as something knowable.

II.A False Dilemma Concealing a Shared Illusion

At first glance, Parmenides and Heraclitus appear as strict opposites. One denies becoming, the other makes it foundational. But they share a deeper assumption: that Being is accessible to rational discourse. Parmenides entraps himself in a deductive system that excludes all contradiction. Heraclitus embraces contradiction—but only as a new kind of order. In both cases, Being is contained within a thinkable structure—static or fluid. Neither contemplates that Being might be entirely unthinkable. That any attempt to conceptualize it is already a betrayal. The founding error lies in believing that Being can be the object of thought. And this, remarkably, becomes the starting point for all of Western philosophy. It is not a matter of choosing sides—Parmenidean or Heraclitean. Rather, the entire battlefield is perhaps illusory. The war between permanence and change may itself be based on a false premise: that Being can be captured in thought at all.

III. The Stabilizing Force of Plato and Aristotle

Enter Plato and Aristotle—the great stabilizers of this conceptual earthquake. Plato splits reality into two levels: the ever-changing sensible world and the immutable world of Forms. He preserves Parmenides’ immutability in the intelligible realm, while relegating Heraclitean flux to the world of appearances. The eidos or Idea becomes the true Being. Yet Plato does more than that. He aestheticizes the absolute. In dialogues like the Republic or Parmenides, he weaves metaphysical structure with ethical and political consequence. The realm of Forms becomes not just the site of truth, but of goodness. His allegory of the cave shows how the philosophical soul must ascend from shadows toward Being—as if Being were a goal to reach. Aristotle tries to synthesize both through his notions of substance and accident, potentiality and actuality. For him, Being is what is said in many ways—but it is still graspable through categories, logic, and a well-structured ontology. His Metaphysics seeks to bring order where Heraclitus brought fire. Both thinkers aim to domesticate the initial tension. They preserve the possibility of knowledge by embedding the ontological mystery into a conceptual framework. Yet in doing so, they accept without question the fundamental assumption that Being can be talked about, defined, classified. Thus, from its inception, philosophy becomes an architectural endeavor: a building project of concepts, distinctions, systems. The ground, however, was never secured.

IV. The Unthinkability of Being

Thought requires concepts, distinctions, categories. But Being, by definition, precedes and escapes all categories. Any attempt to think Being as an object is destined to fail. To say that Being is change or that Being is permanence is already to freeze it in language. To say that Being is thinkable is to forget that it precedes thought. Being is not a content—it is an act, a presence. It manifests, but never lets itself be grasped. It is neither river nor stone. It is what makes rivers and stones be. And that, no concept can express without reduction. The moment one says "Being is X," one has already left Being behind.

V. A Philosophy Built on Illusion

The consequence is staggering: the entire philosophical tradition is perhaps an attempt to describe the indescribable. Parmenides claimed we can only think Being, and not non-being. But perhaps it's the opposite: Being is precisely what cannot be thought. For more than two millennia, thinkers have added wings, vaults, and buttresses to a structure whose foundation is air. Each metaphysical system—from the Stoics to Descartes, from Spinoza to Hegel—elaborates intricate models, but the basic assumption remains: that Being can be known. This is the illusion that sustains the edifice. And when cracks appear—when language breaks, when systems contradict themselves—philosophy calls it a “problem” to be resolved. Rarely does it admit that perhaps the problem is not in the structure, but in the very decision to build.

VI. Anticipated Objection: Isn't this just mysticism?

A reasonable reader might object: Isn’t this just a mystic rejection of reason? If Being can’t be thought, why write at all? This is not mysticism—it is lucidity. It does not claim secret knowledge. It simply observes that the most basic condition of existence—Being—is what makes thought possible, not what thought can contain. To speak of Being is already to distort it. But to stay silent is not an option either. The goal is not to say what Being is, but to point toward the limits of all saying. This is not abandoning philosophy—it is returning to its root: wonder.

VII. Conclusion: Toward an Ontological Agnosticism

Acknowledging this foundational error is not a call to abandon philosophy—it is an invitation to free it from its dogmatic ambition. It is not a call to destroy the edifice, but to stop mistaking it for solid ground. Being is. That is all.

And this is cannot be captured, only lived.

The refusal to conceptualize Being, the acceptance of its radical elusiveness—this is what I call ontological agnosticism. Not the denial of Being, but the abandonment of our pretension to master it through thought. It is not a failure of knowledge, but the beginning of wisdom. Not a defeat, but the end of a long illusion.

To think Being is like trying to trap the wind in a cage of glass. We may admire the cage. We may call it sublime. But it holds only our need for order—not what truly moves.

And perhaps, when we stop trying to understand Being, we might finally begin to dwell with it.