What relationship does the second part of the Parmenides have with the first part? In this article, we will try to show that Parmenides suggests in the second part of the dialogue a change of point of view: if the aporias of the first part were caused by the analysis of the notion of participation of the sensible to the intelligible, the second part of the dialogue develops, among other things, an account about the necessity for the intelligible to possess an identity of its own, without this identity implying that it would be necessary to consider the intelligible Forms as autarchic and isolated entities. We will defend that the first two series of deductions (D1 and D2) offer some important considerations about the necessity for some entities like the Forms to be described both in terms of identity and alterity. Addressing this prescription might well help to escape some of the difficulties of the first part of the dialogue.
