What about Plurality? Aristotle’s Discussion of Zeno’s Paradoxes

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Peitho Pub Date : 2021-12-13 DOI:10.14746/pea.2021.1.5
B. Sattler
{"title":"What about Plurality? Aristotle’s Discussion of Zeno’s Paradoxes","authors":"B. Sattler","doi":"10.14746/pea.2021.1.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While Aristotle provides the crucial testimonies for the paradoxes of motion, topos, and the falling millet seed, surprisingly he shows almost no interest in the paradoxes of plurality. For Plato, by contrast, the plurality paradoxes seem to be the central paradoxes of Zeno and Simplicius is our primary source for those. This paper investigates why the plurality paradoxes are not examined by Aristotle and argues that a close look at the context in which Aristotle discusses Zeno holds the answer to this question.","PeriodicalId":36201,"journal":{"name":"Peitho","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peitho","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/pea.2021.1.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While Aristotle provides the crucial testimonies for the paradoxes of motion, topos, and the falling millet seed, surprisingly he shows almost no interest in the paradoxes of plurality. For Plato, by contrast, the plurality paradoxes seem to be the central paradoxes of Zeno and Simplicius is our primary source for those. This paper investigates why the plurality paradoxes are not examined by Aristotle and argues that a close look at the context in which Aristotle discusses Zeno holds the answer to this question.
那么多元化呢?亚里士多德对芝诺悖论的讨论
虽然亚里士多德为运动悖论、地形悖论和掉落的谷子提供了关键的证据,但令人惊讶的是,他对多元悖论几乎没有兴趣。相比之下,对柏拉图来说,多重悖论似乎是芝诺的中心悖论,而辛普利西乌斯是这些悖论的主要来源。本文探讨了为什么亚里斯多德没有考察多重悖论,并认为仔细观察亚里斯多德讨论芝诺的背景可以找到这个问题的答案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Peitho
Peitho Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信