Originally published in 1936, this book presents the ancient Greek text of the paraphrases and quotations of Zeno's philosophical arguments, together with a facing-page English translation and editorial commentary. Detailed notes are incorporated throughout and a bibliography is also included. This book will be of value to anyone with an interest in Zeno and ancient philosophy.

There is a hitherto not recognized possibility effectively to use computer-based scientific investigating, teaching and learning strategies and resources in history of philosophy. This is especially interesting for comparative scientific investigations in history of philosophy, for distance learning and teaching it. Effectively to apply modern computer technologies one has to have an adequate mathematical simulation of the sphere of application. Therefore the paper starts with submitting a mathematical simulation of metaphysics (in general). Then this mathematical machinery is applied to a (...) representative concrete example, namely, to the metaphysical system of Parmenides of Elea. By means of the method submitted in this paper (and by virtue of computer) a user himself can create (construct) an adequate digital simulation of some computable aspect of any specific philosophical system. Here the digital method of investigating the history of philosophy is exemplified by applying it to the metaphysical system of Parmenides. According to the hypothesis underlying the mentioned method, metaphysics is formal axiology. Hence algebra of metaphysics is algebra of formal axiology. Therefore metaphysics of Parmenides is represented below as a system of equations of the formal-axiology algebra. This system of equations could be computer-generated and investigated by any user autonomously. (shrink)

Zeno of Elea, despite being among the most important of the Pre-Socratic philosophers, is frequently overlooked by philosophers and scientists alike in modern times. Zeno of Elea’s arguments on have not only been an impetus for the most important scientific and mathematical theories in human history, his arguments still serve as a basis for modern problems and theoretical speculations. This is a study of his arguments on motion, the purpose they have served in the history of science, and (...) modern applications of Zeno of Elea’s arguments on motion. (shrink)

The main thesis of Michael Della Rocca’s outstanding Spinoza book (Della Rocca 2008a) is that at the very center of Spinoza’s philosophy stands the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): the stipulation that everything must be explainable or, in other words, the rejection of any brute facts. Della Rocca rightly ascribes to Spinoza a strong version of the PSR. It is not only that the actual existence and features of all things must be explicable, but even the inexistence – as well (...) as the absence of any feature of any thing – demands an explanation. Della Rocca does not stop here, however. He feeds his PSR monster with some more powerful steroids and suggests that Spinoza advocates what he terms “the twofold use of the PSR.” It is not only that everything must be explained and made intelligible, but it must ultimately be explained in terms of explainability or intelligibility itself. This twofold use of the PSR is the key to the entire book. Della Roca’s strategy throughout the book is to argue that any key feature of Spinoza’s system – be it causality, inherence, essence, consciousness, existence, rejection of teleology, goodness or political right – must be explained, and ultimately it must be explained in terms of intelligibility. “Spinoza single-mindedly digs and digs until we find that the phenomenon in question is nothing but some form of intelligibility itself, of explicability itself” (Della Rocca 2008a: 2). Della Rocca’s book came out together with a cluster of articles in which he develops in detail his new reading of Spinoza. In one of these articles, he warns the reader: “Don’t let me start” (Dell Rocca 2010: 1). The train that is about to embark leads to very bizarre terrain, and thus one should think twice before embarking on the “PSR Express.” In this paper I argue that the train was hijacked. This was a perfect crime: without anyone noticing it, the engine driver diverted the train to a new route, and as with other perfect crimes, it is none but the criminal himself who is capable of, and indeed will, bring about his own demise. As I will later argue, Della Rocca’s “PSR-on-steroids” will eventually cripple reason itself. But let us not run too fast, and start at the very beginning. I happily – or at least, so I think - board the “PSR Express.” I believe Spinoza is strongly committed to the PSR and makes very significant use of this principle, but, unlike Della Rocca, I do not think the PSR is the key to all mysteries Spinozist, nor do I believe Spinoza was committed to the reductionist program of explaining all things through intelligibility (i.e., the second use of the PSR). (shrink)

According to the influential Plato-Aristotle account, Parmenides advocates holistic monism (‘all things are one’), and Xenophanes anticipated him by advocating some version of monotheism. Over the last half-century or so, Parmenides studies have disputed this vulgate by arguing that Parmenides’ focus is on the nature of ‘what is’ (to eon), rather than on ‘the One’. Correspondingly, there has developed a tendency to minimize the philosophical importance of Xenophanes, by viewing him primarily as a reformer of Greek religious beliefs and as (...) social critic. I argue that a close study of Xenophanes shows that he had developed a coherent naturalist or physicalist world-view. And this also allows us to gain deeper insights into Parmenides, by viewing the latter as generalizing Xenophanes’ critique of peculiarly ‘anthropist’ (or anthropomorphist) bias in our approach to the universe.Dedication: to Dan Graham. (shrink)

Placing Parmenides in his proper historical context by taking seriously the impact of Persian Zoroastrianism on his developing monoism, Henn supplies precise interpretation of the most difficult and vexing of Parmenides's fragments, while...

Zenon von Elea (5. Jh. v. Chr.) gilt als einer der bedeutendsten vorsokratischen Philosophen. Mit Ausnahme von höchstens fünf wörtlichen Zitaten besteht die gesamte Überlieferung zu ihm jedoch nur aus kursorischen Paraphrasen und teils kontroversen Diskussionen seiner Überlegungen bei späteren Autoren. Durch umsichtige und kritische Auswertung sämtlicher relevanter Quellen lassen sich gleichwohl über seine beiden sogenannten "Argumente gegen die Vielheit" (Frg. B1-3) sowie über das sogenannte "Argument des Orts" (Frg. B5) philologisch schlüssige, sachlich plausible und historisch stimmige Hypothesen aufstellen. (...) Das Ergebnis besteht in zwei neuen Rekonstruktionen, die im Vergleich zum bisherigen Forschungsstand den gesamten Überlieferungsbefund verständlicher sowie Zenons ursprüngliche Argumentation und Zielsetzung einsichtiger werden lassen. Folgt man diesen beiden Rekonstruktionen, so erscheint nicht nur die Beziehung, die seit der Antike zwischen den Überlegungen Zenons und der Philosophie des Parmenides angenommen wird, in einem neuen Licht, sondern es werden womöglich auch einige geistesgeschichtliche Entwicklungen des 5. und 4. Jhs. v. Chr. präziser fassbar, als dies bislang der Fall war. (shrink)

In 1561 J.Cornarius proposed his own version of some passages of Plato's Sophist In this version Theodorus presents the Eleatic Stranger as "a companion (hetairos) of Parmenideans and Zenonians" (216a). Since then, this cliché is accepted by all translations. However, when the possibility of justifying the existence of images and appearances is considered, the Stranger himself proposes 'testing' Parmenides' thesis. His remarks are rather those of an adversary than of a friend or companion of Parmenides. In fact, in spite of (...) Theodorus' presentation, the Stranger, albeit citizen of Elea, does not seem to share the theses of the 'Eleatics'. These anomalies invited us to question the character of 'companion' of the 'Parmenideans' credited to the Stranger. The questioning is possible if we exploit some valuable greek manuscripts of Plato's Sophist, neglected by J.Burnet, like Vindobonensis 21 (Y). This manuscript, among others, has the lecture heteros, 'different', instead of hetairon, 'companion'. This manuscript permits to maintain the formula tôn hetairôn, transmitted by all the manuscripts after the first hetairon, and removed in modern editions. The translation we propose is: the Eleatic Stranger is "different (heteros) of the companions (tôn hetairôn) of Parmenides and Zenon". (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to revisit the problem about the influence of preceding philosophical theories on the Megaric group. Against the traditional view which defend either the influence of Parmenides or that of Socrates, I will try to show the impact of the philosophical position of Zeno of Elea. I will aim to defend that the Megarics use Zenonian antilogy as a part of eristic refutation. In the first section of this paper, I will present and discuss (...) the aforementioned interpretations that privilege either the Parmenidean or the Socratic influence on the Megarics. Then I will analyze the grounds and scope of Zenonian antilogy taking into account all the testimonies which present it as a tool to dicuss theories, rather than to defend them. Finally, I will show how the Megarics use Zenonian antilogy to construct paradoxes based on the numerous ambiguities concerning the signifier and meaning of words, predication, and reasoning, in order to reveal the limits of lógos and refute those who use it as a tool to grasp reality. (shrink)

For Kant's interpretation of Zeno in KrV A502-507/B530-535, scholars have usually referred to Plato's Phaedrus ; in reality the sources Kant uses are, on one hand, Brucker , and, on the other, Plato's Parmenides and Proclus' commentary on it, as quoted by Gassendi in a popular textbook he wrote on the history of logic. Per l'interpretazione kantiana di Zenone in KrV A502-507/B530-535 gli studiosi rinviano solitamente al Fedro platonico ; in realtà, le fonti cui Kant attinse sono, da un lato (...) il Brucker , dall'altro il Parmenide platonico e il commento di Proclo al passo, riportato dal Gassendi in una sua fortunata storia della logica. (shrink)

Recensione di Rossetti, L. Parmenide e Zenone sophoi ad Elea.

This paper makes the following claims: 1) early playwrights (especially Cratinus and Epicharmus, with a new reading of frr. 23B1-2 DK = 275-276 PCG) were keen on lampooning Eleatism; 2) through literary and linguistic devices that were obvious for Plato's original public, Plato revived this tradition in the Parmenides; 3) the Parmenides portrays the Eleats as catastrophically counterproductive philosophers. In sharp contrast with Socratic logoi, Eleatism, far from promoting philosophy (protreptic), eventually alienates all possible disciples ('apotreptic'), thus undermining the very (...) notion of Platonic philo-sophia. (shrink)

Om ett värdeobjektivistiskt inslag i Hägerströms moralfilosofiska teorier.--Till försvar för Zenon från Elea.--Den speciella relativitetsteoriens förhållande til de newtonianska föreställningarna om rum och tid.

Not very long ago, Plato'sSophistwas often presented as a dialogue devoted to the problem of being and not-being, entangled with limited success in an inquiry into the nature of the sophist. Thanks to the renewal of interest in the dramatic form of Plato's dialogues, recent works have shown that this entanglement is far from ill-conceived or anecdotal. However, the inquiry into the sophist is itself introduced by another question, concerning the nature of the Stranger from Elea himself. I would (...) like to show that this question and the way in which it is raised in the prologue may themselves shed light on the relations between the many threads which run across this very complex dialogue. (shrink)

Respuesta al comentario de Juan Esteban Sarmiento. “El testimonio de Aristóteles sobre Zenón de Elea comoun detractor de ‘lo uno’.” Ideas y Valores 65.161 (2016): 424-427.

Los estudiosos suelen concordar actualmente en que la “escuela eleática”, tal como se nos presenta por primera vez en los diálogos de Platón, tiene más de ficción que de realidad histórica. En este artículo trato de dilucidar el origen de esa ficción, empezando por examinar las hipótesis de que el comentario de Platón acerca de la “tribu eleática” iniciada por Jenófanes es una broma o bien refleja una interpretación previa debida a Hipias o a Antístenes. Argüiré que la “eleatización” de (...) Jenófanes fue introducida –junto a la lectura de Parménides y Zenón como filósofos monistas, a la manera de Meliso– por la escuela megárica de Euclides (lo cual me obliga a defender, contra Von Fritz y Döring, el carácter neo-eleático de la filosofía megárica), y sugeriré que una huella precisa de tal interpretación megárica puede encontrarse en la sección dedicada a Jenófanes del tratado pseudo-aristotélico De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia. (shrink)

En este trabajo se mostrará la posibilidad de establecer dos líneas interpretativas contemporáneas acerca del Poema sobre la Naturaleza de Parménides de Elea tomando como criterio para su delimitación el tratamiento que recibe el problema del “ser” dado que esta noción es clave para configurar todos los temas de la reflexión parmenídea. En este sentido, se presentará una perspectiva que despliega el “ser” en el ámbito de los problemas sobre la noción de existencia (lectura existencial) frente a otra que (...) encuentra en el “ser” la expresión de esencia o naturaleza última (lectura esencial), al tiempo que se revisarán sus implicaciones con relación al establecimiento y diferenciación de las vías de investigación. The question of Being in the Poem about Nature of Parmenides of Elea. Two interpretative alternativesThis paper concerns about the possibility of the establishment of two contemporary interpretational views for approaching Parmenides’ Poem On Nature assuming as a criterion the different treatments about the problem of being, because this notion is the key for configuration of all themes in parmenidean reflection. Therefore, on one viewpoint “being” is at the center of existential questions (this will be called “existential reading”), and, on the other hand, “being” is taken in the sense ofessence or ultimate nature (this will be call “essential reading”); at the same time the implications related to building and differentiating the routes of investigation will be reviewed. (shrink)

For a long time, Parmenides has been considered the first real metaphysician in history, a theorist of a disembodied being, unreachable by the scientific knowledge of the world. In his Eleatic Lectures, Giovanni Cerri goes back to his renown interpretation of Parmenides as a scientist fully aware of the epistemological foundations of knowledge, and capable of foreshadowing the ultimate outcome of the evolution of science, that is, the discovery of being as a single homogeneous body. Cerri also shows that the (...) works of two other thinkers who were trained in the heart of the school of Elea itself support his interpretation: on the one hand Zeno, with his arguments against plurality; on the other hand Leucippus, the inventor of atomism. Ten scholars have been called to discuss this broad interpretation of a crucial page in the history of thought. Cerri replies to each of them in the final pages of the volume, engaging in a dense dialogue. (shrink)