For more than 20 years now, the phenomenological approach to schizophrenia has developed a strong and influential hypothesis on the basic alterations of this disorder. Schizophrenia, it is claimed, is a disorder of subjectivity, and more specifically, a disorder of the minimal self. This ‘minimal self’ aims to describe the most basic or core self, which is considered to be foundational for every other kind of self. It is a form of minimal self-awareness that precedes every explicit or reflective self-awareness. (...) Based on this model, a semistructured interview has... (shrink)

Over the past years, the intersubjective dimension of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia, has gained increasing phenomenological attention. Psychopathologists and philosophers have developed ideas on how the social aspects of psychotic symptoms and experiences could be understood, in particular in their relation to the ipseity disturbance model, namely the idea that schizophrenia is essentially a disorder of the minimal self. Although the exact characteristics of the ipseity disorder hypothesis can differ from author to author, emphasizing certain phenomenological aspects like temporality or (...) embodiment... (shrink)

BACKGROUND: Delusions in schizophrenia are commonly approached as empirical false beliefs about everyday reality. Phenomenological accounts, by contrast, have suggested that delusions are more adequately understood as pertaining to a different kind of reality experience. How this alteration of reality experience should be characterised, which dimensions of experiential life are involved, and whether delusional reality might differ from standard reality in various ways is unclear and little is known about how patients with delusions value and relate to these experiential alterations. (...) This study aimed to investigate the nature of delusional reality experience, and its subjective apprehension, in individuals with lived experience of delusions and a schizophrenia-spectrum diagnosis. METHODS: In this qualitative phenomenological study, we recruited individuals with lived experience of delusions and a schizophrenia-spectrum diagnosis from two psychiatric-hospital services in Belgium using homogenous sampling. Criteria for participation were having undergone at least one psychotic episode with occurring delusional symptoms, present at least 1 year before participation, on the basis of clinical notes assessed by the attending psychiatrist; a schizophrenia-spectrum diagnosis, ascertained through clinical interview by the attending psychiatrist upon admission; being aged between 18 years and 65 years; and having the capacity to give informed consent. Exclusion criteria included worries concerning capacity to consent and risk of distress caused by participation. We did phenomenologically driven semi-structured interviews with the participants to explore the nature of delusional reality experience and their subjective valuation of these experiences. We used interpretative phenomenological analysis, a qualitative method tailored to the in-depth exploration of participants’ first-person perspective, to analyse their accounts. FINDINGS: Between March 2, 2020, and Sept 30, 2020, 18 adults participated in the interview study. The findings suggest that delusions are often embedded in wide-ranging alterations of basic reality experience, involving quasi-ineffable atmospheric and ontological qualities that undermine participants’ sense of the world as unambiguously real, fully present, and shared with others. We also found that delusional reality experience can differ from standard reality in various ways, across multiple dimensions, and that participants are often implicitly or explicitly aware of the distinction between delusional and standard reality. Delusional experience can have an enduring value and meaning that is not fully captured by a strictly medical perspective. INTERPRETATION: Increased awareness and recognition of the distinctive nature of delusional reality experience, in both clinical and research settings, can improve diagnostic accuracy, explanatory models, and therapeutic support for individuals with delusions whose lived realities are not always evident from an everyday perspective. FUNDING: FWO Flanders. TRANSLATION: For the Dutch translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section. (shrink)

Contemporary perspectives on delusions offer valuable neuropsychiatric, psychoanalytic, and philosophical explanations of the formation and persistence of delusional phenomena. However, two problems arise. Firstly, these different perspectives offer us an explanation “from the outside”. They pay little attention to the actual personal experiences, and implicitly assume their incomprehensibility. This implicates a questionable validity. Secondly, these perspectives fail to account for two complex phenomena that are inherent to certain delusions, namely double book-keeping and the primary delusional experience. The purpose of this (...) article is to address both problems, by offering an understanding “from the inside”. Our phenomenological approach is a form of “radical empathy”, and crosses the Jaspersian limits of understanding. It compares delusional experiences with variations of reality experience in everyday life, and makes use of the structure of imagination. Six factors influencing the experience of reality are discussed and illustrated by clinical and non-clinical examples. These factors are: continuity, materiality and resistance, multiplicity of sensations and perceptions, intensity, the sense of authorship, and the complex role of intersubjectivity. I suggest that experiences of hypo- and hyperreality are not restricted to pathology, but have their place in everyday life as well. Delusional phenomena can be better understood by investigating the interplay of these six factors. With this framework, the two complex phenomena consequently prove to be better understandable to us. Our approach remains within the phenomenal experience and might thereby contribute to the validity of psychopathology. (shrink)

Phenomenological psychopathology is a research field that aims to investigate and describe the subjective experience of mental disorders. By suspending the assumptions about etiology and causality as much as possible, and by focusing on the subjective experiences of the patient, it is supposed to offer a profound understanding of the patient’s suffering, and of the disorder in general. Clarity in the description of these experiences is, therefore, a necessity. Traditionally, phenomenological psychopathology was studied mostly by European, and particularly by German (...) and French psychiatrists, such as Karl Jaspers, Wolfgang Blankenburg, and Eugène Minkowski. Today, psychopathologists like Josef Parnas, Giovanni... (shrink)

A solution of the zeno paradoxes in terms of a discrete space is usually rejected on the basis of an argument formulated by hermann weyl, The so-Called tile argument. This note shows that, Given a set of reasonable assumptions for a discrete geometry, The weyl argument does not apply. The crucial step is to stress the importance of the nonzero width of a line. The pythagorean theorem is shown to hold for arbitrary right triangles.

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.

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)

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)

Pythagoras -- Confucius -- Heracleitus -- Parmenides -- Zeno of Elea -- Socrates -- Democritus -- Plato -- Aristotle -- Mencius -- Zhuangzi -- Pyrrhon of Elis -- Epicurus -- Zeno of Citium -- Philo Judaeus -- Marcus Aurelius -- Nagarjuna -- Plotinus -- Sextus Empiricus -- Saint Augustine -- Hypatia -- Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius -- Śaṅkara -- Yaqūb ibn Ishāq aṣ-Ṣabāḥ al-Kindī -- Al-Fārābī -- Avicenna -- Rāmānuja -- Ibn Gabirol -- Saint Anselm of Canterbury (...) -- al-Ghazālī -- Peter Abelard -- Averroës -- Zhu Xi -- Moses Maimonides -- Ibn al-'Arabī -- Shinran -- Saint Thomas Aquinas -- John Duns Scotus -- William of Ockham -- Niccolò Machiavelli -- Wang Yangming -- Francis Bacon, Viscount Saint Alban (or Albans), Baron of Verulam -- Thomas Hobbes -- René Descartes -- John Locke -- Benedict de Spinoza -- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz -- Giambattista Vico -- George Berkeley -- Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu -- David Hume -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau -- Immanuel Kant -- Moses Mendelssohn -- Marie-Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat, marquis de Condorcet -- Jeremy Bentham -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel -- Arthur Schopenhauer -- Auguste Comte -- John Stuart Mill -- Søren Kierkegaard -- Karl Marx -- Herbert Spencer -- Wilhelm Dilthey -- William James -- Friedrich Nietzsche -- Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege -- Edmund Husserl -- Henri Bergson -- John Dewey -- Alfred North Whitehead -- Benedetto Croce -- Nishida Kitarō -- Bertrand Russell -- G.E. Moore -- Martin Buber -- Ludwig Wittgenstein -- Martin Heidegger -- Rudolf Carnap -- Sir Karl Popper -- Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno -- Jean-Paul Sartre -- Hannah Arendt -- Simone de Beauvoir -- Willard Van Orman Quine -- Sir A.J. Ayer -- Wilfrid Sellars -- John Rawls -- Thomas S. Kuhn -- Michel Foucault -- Noam Chomsky -- Jürgeb Gabernas -- Sir Bernard Williams -- Jacques Derrida -- Richard Rorty -- Robert Nozick -- Saul Kripke -- David Kellogg Lewis -- Peter (Albert David) Singer. (shrink)

Zeno of Elea's paradoxes of motion are one of the most successful provocations in the history of philosophy. There are exactly four paradoxes, namely, the dichotomy, the arrow, Achilles, and the moving rows. This chapter presents the paradoxes in such a way that their strength, fascination, and profoundness are apparent. After providing some basic information about Zeno, the chapter sketches the research program that is the context of Zeno's paradoxes. It goes back to Parmenides and may (...) be called Parmenideanism. The dichotomy and the Achilles paradox are rather two variants of one thought than two different arguments. The moving rows are complicated and not much can be learned from them. Their presentation in the chapter is restricted to some rough outline after the discussion of reactions to the dichotomy and the Achilles. (shrink)

Almost everything that we know about Zeno of Elea is to be found in the opening pages of Plato's Parmenides. There we learn that Zeno was nearly 40 years old when Socrates was a young man, say 20. Since Socrates was born in 469 BC we can estimate a birth date for Zeno around 490 BC. Beyond this, really all we know is that he was close to Parmenides (Plato reports the gossip that they were lovers (...) when Zeno was young), and that he wrote a book of paradoxes defending Parmenides' philosophy. Sadly this book has not survived, and what we know of his arguments is second-hand, principally through Aristotle and his commentators (here I have drawn particularly on Simplicius, who, though writing a thousand years after Zeno, apparently possessed at least some of his book). There were apparently 40 ‘paradoxes of plurality’, attempting to show that ontological pluralism — a belief in the existence of many things rather than only one — leads to absurd conclusions; of these paradoxes only two definitely survive, though a third argument can probably be attributed to Zeno. Aristotle speaks of a further four arguments against motion (and by extension change generally), all of which he gives and attempts to refute. In addition Aristotle attributes two other paradoxes to Zeno. Sadly again, almost none of these paradoxes are quoted in Zeno's original words by their various commentators, but in paraphrase. (shrink)

This paper considers some aspects of the early conception and use of the infinite in ancient Greece, in the spirit of recent results in the history of ancient mathematics. It follows aspects of the practice of reasoning ad infinitum from the extant corpus of and about Zeno of Elea up to early Hellenistic examples in Aristotle and Euclid. Starting with the idea of ‘reasoning from indefinite iteration’, based on the metalogical recognition of the unachievability of an inference process, (...) it identifies several different classes of more or less sophisticated arguments that make use of this idea, and examines the logical devices and notions required for their acceptance in the philosophical practice. Those include ‘Infinite regress’ properly speaking, where Non-Contradiction is used in the formation of indirect infinitary arguments. (shrink)

Zeno of Elea's motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, are stated (1), commented on (2), and their historical proposed solutions then discussed (3). Their correct solution, based on recent conclusions in physics associated with time and classical and quantum mechanics, and in particular, of there being a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time (including relative position), for their continuity through time, is then explained (4). This article follows on from another, more (...) physics orientated and widely encompassing paper entitled "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity" (Lynds, 2003), with its intention being to detail the correct solution to Zeno's paradoxes more fully by presently focusing on them alone. If any difficulties are encountered in understanding any aspects of the physics underpinning the following contents, it is suggested that readers refer to the original paper for a more in depth coverage. (shrink)

ABNER SHIMONY of the Paradox A PHILOSOPHICAL PUPPET PLAY Dramatis personae: Zeno , Pupil, Lion Scene: The school of Zeno at Elea. Pup. Master! ...

It will be shown in this article that an ontological approach for some problems related to the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) could emerge from a re-evaluation of the main paradox of early Greek thought: the paradox of Being and non-Being, and the solutions presented to it by Plato and Aristotle. More well known are the derivative paradoxes of Zeno: the paradox of motion and the paradox of the One and the Many. They stem from what was perceived by (...) classical philosophy to be the fundamental enigma for thinking about the world: the seemingly contradictory results that followed from the co-incidence of being and non-being in the world of change and motion as we experience it, and the experience of absolute existence here and now. The most clear expression of both stances can be found, again following classical thought, in the thinking of Heraclitus of Ephesus and Parmenides of Elea. The problem put forward by these paradoxes reduces for both Plato and Aristotle to the possibility of the existence of stable objects as a necessary condition for knowledge. Hence the primarily ontological nature of the solutions they proposed: Plato’s Theory of Forms and Aristotle’s metaphysics and logic. Plato’s and Aristotle’s systems are argued here to do on the ontological level essentially the same: to introduce stability in the world by introducing the notion of a separable, stable object, for which a ‘principle of contradiction’ is valid: an object cannot be and not-be at the same place at the same time. So it becomes possible to forbid contradiction on an epistemological level, and thus to guarantee the certainty of knowledge that seemed to be threatened before. After leaving Aristotelian metaphysics, early modern science had to cope with these problems: it did so by introducing “space” as the seat of stability, and “time” as the theater of motion. But the ontological structure present in this solution remained the same. Therefore the fundamental notion ‘separable system’, related to the notions observation and measurement, themselves related to the modern concepts of space and time, appears to be intrinsically problematic, because it is inextricably connected to classical logic on the ontological level. We see therefore the problems dealt with by quantum logic not as merely formal, and the problem of ‘non-locality’ as related to it, indicating the need to re-think the notions system, entity, as well as the implications of the operation ‘measurement’, which is seen here as an application of classical logic (including its ontological consequences) on the material world. (shrink)

The five participants in this dialogue critically discuss Zeno of Elea's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. They consider a number of solutions to and restatements of the paradox, together with their philosophical implications. Among the issues investigated include the appearance-reality distinction, Aristotle's distinction between actual and potential infinity, the concept of a continuum, Cantor's continuum hypothesis and theory of transfinite ordinals, and, as a solution to Zeno's puzzle, the distinction between infinite and indeterminate or inexhaustible divisibility.

The reductio ad absurdum has been elected by Zeno as the only method permitting to descry the true reality, invisible both to the senses and to the common way of thinking. Showing some continuity with the previous philosophers, not only in the search for a procedure in order to speculation to advance, but also on the same route departing from what is nearer, more acquainted and particular (visible) toward what is less acquainted, more distant and universal (invisible), to say (...) it with aristotelic words, Zeno made use of aporetic arguments as the only possible way to catch a glimpse of the ‘domain of Being’. This, in fact, is invisible not only to our senses, but also to our ordinary reasoning. Therefore, just the ‘way of not-being’, the only one that could be walked after Parmenides, as Wolff says, allows us to have an insight of what is ‘really invisible’. So invisible that it is unreachable also to thought. (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)

Of Zeno’s book of forty paradoxes, it was the first that attracted Socrates’ attention. This is the paradox of the like and the unlike. On contemporary assessments, this paradox is largely considered to be Zeno’s weakest surviving paradox. All of these assessments, however, rely heavily on reconstructions of the paradox. It is only relative to these reconstructions that there is nothing paradoxical involved, or that there is some rather obvious mistake being made. This paper puts forward and defends (...) a novel interpretation of this paradox, according to which the concept of a unit plays a central role. There is every reason to think the paradox turns on the concept of a unit: after the presentation of the paradox the text of the Parmenides immediately turns to a discussion of units, and the concept of a unit is also central to the Greek conception of a plurality. If this interpretation is correct then the paradox that Zeno presented was the same as one discussed and solved in Frege’s Grundlagen. (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo es discutir la interpretación tradicional según la cual los razonamientos de Zenón de Elea en contra de la multiplicidad constituyen una defensa de la tesis monista. Intentaré demostrar que las objeciones zenonianas a la multiplicidad suponen una critica previa a la existencia de "lo uno". Por este motivo, Zenón no es monista ni pluralista, sino, más bien, un crítico de las perspectivas metafísicas que consideran al ser en términos numéricos, i. e. como uno o (...) como múltiple. Para ello me concentraré en el análisis de la interpretación que Aristóteles desarrolla sobre la filosofía de Zenón, considerando algunos pasajes de Física, Refutaciones sofísticas y, fundamentalmente, Metafísica, III. 4. 1001b7-13. También incluiré algunos testimonios del comentario a la Física de Simplicio, en los que se discuten las interpretaciones de Eudemo de Rodas y Alejandro de Afrodisia, que ratifican el punto de vista aristotélico sobre la filosofía de Zenón. The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional interpretation according to which the arguments of Zeno of Elea against multiplicity constitute a defense of monism. I will try to prove that Zeno's objections on plurality suppose a previous critique to the existence of the one. Therefore Zeno is neither a monist nor a pluralist but a philosopher who criticizes metaphysical theories that consider being in numerical terms, i. e. as many or as one. I will focus on the analysis of the interpretation of Zeno's philosophy developed by Aristotle. I will consider some passages from Physics, Sophistical Refutations and mainly Metaphysics III. 4. 1001b7-13. I will also include some testimonies from Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, where he discusses the interpretations of Eudemus of Rhodes and Alexander of Aphrodisias that support the Aristotelian point of view on Zeno's philosophy. (shrink)

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

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)

Review of Rossetti, L. _Parmenide e Zenone sophoi ad Elea_.