David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Phronesis 50 (3):232-249 (2005)
The present study partly supports, partly corrects, and partly complements recent discussions of Arius Didymus fr. 23 and fr. 25 Diels, Aetius I, 20, 1 and Sextus Empiricus AM X, 3-4 = PH III, 124. It proposes a comprehensive interpretation of the first text (A.I), defends the attribution of its content to Zeno of Citium (A.II), interprets the Stoic definitions of space, place and void to be found in the other sources (B.I) and again vindicates the attribution of the core definitions to Zeno (B.II). The central methodological principle is the presumption of innocence for sources.The main conclusions of (A) are: 1. Arius Didymus' fr. 23 deals only with the coherence and the structure of the cosmos, not with its immobility; 2. The coherence of the cosmos, as that of any object, is determined by its hexis which pushes its parts towards its centre; 3. The structure of the cosmos, its stratification into the four concentric spheres of the elements, is determined by the combined effect of (a) the thrust downwards they all undergo from the cosmos' hexis; (b) their own natural weight or lightness and (c) the relative quantitative values of these weights or lightnesses; 4. The reasons adduced against Zeno's authorship are not based on the evidence but on the now prevalent disparaging sceptical approach towards Stobaeus' way of excerpting from Arius.The main conclusions of (B) are: 1. There is no deep contradiction between the various de finitions of space ascribed by our sources to Zeno, Chrysippus and the Stoics in general: what Chrysippus denied was the form of the de finition attributed to Zeno by Aetius, not the concept de fined, even though this form seems to have prevailed later in the school; 2. There is no good reason therefore to question its ascription to Zeno as some modern researchers have done; 3. Here again the error is due to a predominantly sceptical approach towards the reliability of our sources
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Alba Papa-Grimaldi (1996). Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno's Paradoxes Miss the Point: Zeno's One and Many Relation and Parmenides' Prohibition. Review of Metaphysics 50 (2):299 - 314.
Karin Verelst (2006). Zeno's Paradoxes. A Cardinal Problem. 1. On Zenonian Plurality. In J. Šķilters (ed.), Paradox: Logical, Cognitive and Communicative Aspects. Proceedings of the First International Symposium of Cognition, Logic and Communication,. University of Latvia Press
David M. Sherry (1988). Zeno's Metrical Paradox Revisited. Philosophy of Science 55 (1):58-73.
Nicholas Huggett (forthcoming). Zeno's Paradoxes. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.).
Wesley C. Salmon (ed.) (1970). Zeno's Paradoxes. Bobbs-Merrill.
Phil Hopkins (2006). Zeno's Boêtheia Tôi Logôi. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 11 (1):1-25.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #425,196 of 2,117,590 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #459,263 of 2,117,590 )
How can I increase my downloads?