8/9/2019 Gallop, David_Ex Nihilo Nihil, In Nihilum Nil. a Reply to Mourelatos_JPh, 78, 11_1981_666-667

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gallop-davidex-nihilo-nihil-in-nihilum-nil-a-reply-to-mourelatosjph-78 1/3

 Journal of Philosophy, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Philosophy.

http://www.jstor.org

Journal of Philosophy Inc.

Ex Nihilo Nihil, In Nihilum Nil: A Reply to MourelatosAuthor(s): David GallopSource: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 78, No. 11, Seventy-Eighth Annual Meeting of the

 American Philosophical Association Eastern Division (Nov., 1981), pp. 666-667Published by: Journal of Philosophy, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2026577Accessed: 28-02-2015 20:03 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:03:55 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

8/9/2019 Gallop, David_Ex Nihilo Nihil, In Nihilum Nil. a Reply to Mourelatos_JPh, 78, 11_1981_666-667

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gallop-davidex-nihilo-nihil-in-nihilum-nil-a-reply-to-mourelatosjph-78 2/3

8/9/2019 Gallop, David_Ex Nihilo Nihil, In Nihilum Nil. a Reply to Mourelatos_JPh, 78, 11_1981_666-667

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gallop-davidex-nihilo-nihil-in-nihilum-nil-a-reply-to-mourelatosjph-78 3/3

ANCIENT

PHILOSOPHY

667

With

reference

o the universe

s

a

whole,

a spatial version

of the

argument

would appear prima facie

to be as tenable s

the

temporal

one, just as bothversions like would be untenablefora variable

subject. However,

a

distinctiveweakness

in the spatial

version

is

worth considering:

the temporal

argument

assumes,

plausibly

enough,

that generation

could

not occur

at

more than one

time,

whereas a counterpart

ssumption

with

regard to

space

may

be

more debatable.

For the

so-called

annihilation

complement

of ENN,

in

ni-

hilum

nil (INN),

much

depends,

once again,

upon

whether he

sub-

ject

is a unique

referent,he

whole universe, r

a variable.

For the

whole universe,a parallel argumentagainst its perishing,using

the PSR,

would

seemas cogent

as the

one against

its generation.

Mourelatos'

view that INN

carries

a

heavier

burden

of proof

than ENN seems

mistaken,

since his

distinction

between

plain

perishing

and

annihilation by

an all-powerful

destroyer

ppears

to

restupon a

doubtful

dichotomy.

Perishing

through

ny

sort of

disintegration

would be precluded

by thesubject's

being

a unified,

continuous,

ndivisible

whole.

Mourelatos' contrast between Parmenides and Melissus

seems

somewhat

overdrawn.

n

particular,

Melissus'

argument

against

change

finds

reasonably

close parallel

in Parmenides' proof

that

his subject

s changeless;

nd

Melissus' denial

of

thevoid

may,pace

Mourelatos,

be read as

making use

of

the Parmenidean

interdict

against

reference

o what-is-not.

Mourelatos' interpretation

f certain

verses

of

Empedocles,

im-

porting

similar appeal

to the PSR

in orderto

disproveperishing,

is

suggestive,

nd

mightbe

applicable

also to

a puzzling

remark

f

Melissus. Finally,his suggestion hatENN is rooted n Empedoclean

yearning

for

personal

immortality as

some

notable implications

for

Plato's

defense f

mmortality

nd the

Epicurean

attack

upon

it.

DAVID GALLOP

Trent University

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:03:55 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions