From Parmenides to Severino

Since the dawn of Western thought, philosophy has grappled with the nature of Being. Parmenides first articulated its fundamental necessity, rejecting the very possibility of nothingness. Being, he reasoned, is eternal, unchanging, and indestructible—an insight that has remained the foundation of true metaphysical thought. Yet, throughout history, numerous attempts have been made to challenge this realization, introducing notions of becoming, contingency, and flux. Thinkers from Heraclitus to Heidegger have sought to ground existence in movement, temporal unfolding, or existential finitude, believing that reality is marked by transformation rather than permanence. However, these efforts, rather than refuting the necessity of Being, have only reaffirmed its inescapability—every argument against it inevitably assumes its enduring foundation.

Emanuele Severino, recognizing the radical implications of Parmenides’ insight, exposed the contradictions inherent in the belief in becoming. He demonstrated that all things—every entity, every event—are eternally themselves, never passing into non-being. What appears as change is not the movement from existence to nonexistence but the necessary unfolding of what already is. This structure of reality is not an abstract hypothesis or an isolated philosophical claim but the only logically coherent framework, one that remains impervious to the shifting tides of philosophical and scientific speculation. Every attempt to deny it presupposes it, for to even conceive of Being is to acknowledge its indestructibility. In this light, the recognition of necessity is not merely one perspective among many but the inevitable unveiling of what has always been.

The Failure of Contemporary Paradigms

Despite the inevitability of Being’s necessity, modern philosophy has sought ways to evade it. Scientific materialism, postmodern relativism, and existentialism have each, in their own manner, attempted to dismantle the recognition of eternal Being. Yet, in doing so, they have only exposed their own contradictions, revealing the very necessity they seek to deny. The attempt to reject Being is itself an affirmation of its presence.

The Illusion of Scientific Materialism

One of the dominant perspectives in contemporary thought is scientific materialism—the belief that all of reality can be reduced to physical processes and empirical observation. This framework assumes that Being is fundamentally contingent, shaped by physical interactions and evolving over time. However, this assumption collapses under scrutiny. If all things were contingent, then the very foundation of scientific reasoning—the laws of logic, mathematics, and causality—would also be contingent, rendering them unreliable.

Yet, the success of science itself depends on the recognition of necessary truths, such as the invariance of mathematical structures and the consistency of logical principles. The very possibility of scientific inquiry presupposes an underlying order that does not waver with time or subjective interpretation. Thus, rather than refuting the necessity of Being, scientific materialism unwittingly affirms it. The belief that everything is reducible to matter and change is paradoxically grounded in the assumption of immutable structures that do not change.

The Self-Defeat of Postmodern Relativism

Postmodernism, in reaction to the perceived failures of rigid metaphysical systems, has embraced radical relativism. It asserts that truth is constructed, subjective, and ultimately dependent on individual or cultural perspectives. Yet, this very claim is self-defeating: if all truth is relative, then so is the claim that truth is relative, leading to an infinite regress.

Moreover, relativism cannot account for the undeniable presence of necessity in reality—mathematical truths, logical consistency, and the very structure of existence that makes thought and experience possible. Even within the fluidity of cultural and linguistic interpretations, certain principles remain inviolable. The attempt to dissolve Being into subjective interpretations only exposes the inescapability of an underlying, necessary structure. Every discourse, even one that seeks to dismantle absolutes, is inevitably shaped by them.

Existentialism and the Fear of Necessity

Existentialist thinkers have often rejected the idea of a fixed, necessary reality in favor of radical freedom and the absurdity of existence. Figures such as Sartre and Camus argue that meaning must be created rather than discovered, that Being is an empty void upon which individuals must impose significance. However, this perspective overlooks the very conditions that make meaning possible.

If Being were truly groundless, then even the act of imposing meaning would itself be arbitrary, subject to the same absurdity it seeks to transcend. Without a necessary foundation, freedom becomes indistinguishable from randomness, and meaning collapses into mere preference. In contrast, the recognition of an eternal structure does not negate human freedom but instead provides the very framework in which freedom has significance. Rather than a prison, necessity is the condition that makes true understanding and meaningful existence possible.

The Inevitable Return to the Structure of Being

Across these various paradigms, the attempt to reject necessity repeatedly collapses into contradiction. Whether through scientific materialism’s reliance on immutable logical structures, postmodern relativism’s self-defeating claims, or existentialism’s failure to provide a stable foundation for meaning, each attempt to escape Being only affirms its inescapability. The truth is not something that can be deconstructed or avoided—it is the very condition of thought itself. The necessity of Being is not a theoretical postulate but an unavoidable recognition, one that modern philosophy, despite its resistance, cannot ultimately deny.

Conclusion: Thought as the Recognition of the Eternal

The history of philosophy is, in many ways, the history of mankind’s struggle with the necessity of Being. Every effort to replace or reject it ultimately falls into incoherence, exposing the fundamental truth that Being is indestructible and eternal. The role of philosophy is not to construct reality but to recognize its immutable structure.

Whether acknowledged or resisted, the truth of Being remains, waiting to be unveiled. The question is not whether it can be denied but how long before its recognition becomes inevitable.