Zeno's Cosmology and the Presumption of Innocence. Interpretations and Vindications

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)
DOI 10.1163/1568528054740131
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,848
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Rethinking the Presumption of Innocence.Victor Tadros - 2007 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 1 (2):193-213.
The Prosecutor and the Presumption of Innocence.Richard L. Lippke - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (2):337-352.
Innocence.Stephen R. Munzer - 2012 - Faith and Philosophy 29 (2):125-143.
Could the Presumption of Innocence Protect the Guilty?Patrick Tomlin - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (2):431-447.
Zeno's Cosmology?James Longrigo - 1972 - The Classical Review 22 (02):170-171.
Zeno's Paradoxes.Wesley C. Salmon (ed.) - 1970 - Bobbs-Merrill.
Zeno's Boêtheia Tôi Logôi.Phil Hopkins - 2006 - Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 11 (1):1-25.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
20 ( #271,382 of 2,210,518 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #389,893 of 2,210,518 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature