Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 2010. Philosophy Before Socrates: An Introduction with Texts and Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936. Les débuts de la philosophie: des premiers penseurs grecs à Socrate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. Band II, Parmenides, Zenon, Empedokles: Griechisch-Lateinisch-Deutsch. Zenons Paradoxie der Bewegung und die Struktur von Raum und Zeit. 6th ed., Berlin: Weidmann, 1952.įANO, Vincenzo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1939.ĭIELS, H. Plato and Parmenides: Parmenides’ Way of Truth and Plato’s Parmenides. Kossak (eds.), Set Theory, Arithmetic, and Foundations of Mathematics: Theorems, Philosophies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, 180-199.ĬORNFORD, F.M. “A very short History of Ultrafinitism”, in J.
Histoire des Doctrines de l’antiquité classique 7.
Zénon d’Elée: Prolégomènes aux doctrines du continu: étude historique et critique des fragments et témoignages.
Cenon de elea professional#
It follows than, in my opinion, no professional account of Zeno’s paradoxes is conceivable without focusing one’s attention upon what ostensibly was a total novelty, and a new beginning.A notable feature of these pages is the attention paid to what Gorgias and Plato knew about the Space paradox (sources usually excluded from the main collections).īERNABÉ, Alberto. This is the starting point of the paper, which is meant to account as clearly as I can for so fantastic a repository of totally unknown notions. But consider the Dichtomy (‘division in two parts’) paradox: what would remain, were the notion of infinite division not clearly at work, thus not yet clearly available to Zeno? Or the Stadium: what would remain, were the notions of relative motion and that of onkoi (‘masses’) not yet clearly available at least to him? To devise a Stadium without being able to rely upon them would have been extremely difficult! Moreover, this notion plays a key role in fact, this paradox, left without to murioston, would simply collapse. That the paradox of the Millet Seed exploits the notion of to murioston (“the/a ten thousandth”) is clearly assumed by our main source (Simplicius), an adjective noun that, while murios as a notion is already at use in the Homeric poems, is totally unattested before it is therefore unlikely that it had some circulation before Zeno. Yet, so far as I know, this feature of Zeno’s remains has never been highlighted and studied as they probably deserve with only one notable exception: a seminal paper by Cherubin-Mannucci 2011. That Zeno availed himself of a number of previously unfamiliar (and often unknown) and very sophisticated notions, such as that of relative speed, a ten thousandth, infinite division and so on-almost a dozen mostly innovative notions-is a point one simply cannot deny.
0 kommentar(er)
