Question

Hello Rabbi,
The Rabbi described Parmenides' thought in a very lenient way.
As I understand it, Parmenides not only strives toward essence irrespective of attributes, but claims that there are no attributes at all; and if one says that the senses show otherwise, then the senses are misleading us. 
It is possible to present Parmenides' argument as a valid logical argument:
Premise A — it is impossible to grasp non-being (negation) intellectually.
Premise B — the world and the intellect are one (only something that is logically possible in the intellect can exist in the world).
Conclusion — there is no "non-being" in the world; everything is one being.
The broader conclusion is: there is no multiplicity and no difference in the world. Every specific definition of an attribute in the world presupposes the negation of other attributes, and we have already established that negation cannot be grasped by the intellect. Therefore everything is one, and there are no different objects and no different attributes; the senses merely deceive us.
How would the Rabbi deal with Parmenides?