Article
Xenophanes, of Colophon, poet, theologian, and natural philosopher
Charles H. Kahn
Article
Zeno (1), of Elea, philosoper and friend of Parmenides
Malcolm Schofield
Zeno (1), of Elea is portrayed by *Plato(1) (Prm. 127b) as the pupil and friend of *Parmenides, and junior to him by 25 years. Their fictional meeting with a ‘very young’ *Socrates (ibid.) gives little basis for firm chronology. We may conclude only that Zeno was active in the early part of the 5th cent.
The most famous of Zeno's arguments are the four paradoxes about motion paraphrased by *Aristotle (Ph. 6. 9), which have intrigued thinkers down to Bertrand Russell in our era. The Achilles paradox proposes that a quicker can never overtake a slower runner who starts ahead of him, since he must always first reach the place the slower has already occupied. His task is in truth an infinite sequence of tasks, and can therefore never be completed. The Arrow paradox argues that in the present a body in motion occupies a place just its own size, and is therefore at rest. But since it is in the present throughout its movement, it is always at rest. The Dichotomy raises the same issues about infinite divisibility as the Achilles; the Arrow and the Stadium (an obscure puzzle about the relative motion of bodies) are perhaps directed against the implicit assumption of indivisible minima.
Article
Zeno (2), of Citium, founder of Stoicism
Julia Annas
Article
Zeno (3), of Tarsus, Stoic
Julia Annas
Zeno (3) of *Tarsus, Stoic (See
Article
Zeno (5), of Sidon, Epicurean, b. c. 150 BCE
William David Ross and Dirk Obbink
Article
Zeno (6), of Sidon, Stoic
Julia Annas
Zeno (6) of *Sidon, Stoic (See
Article
Zoïlus, of Amphipolis, 4th cent. BCE
John Francis Lockwood and Robert Browning
Zoïlus (Ζωΐλος) of *Amphipolis (4th cent.
(1) Against Isocrates. (2) Against Plato, favourably mentioned by Dion. Hal.Pomp. 1. (3) Against Homer (Καθʼ Ὁμήρου or Κατὰ τῆς Ὁμήρου ποιήσεως ‘Against Homer's poetry’ or perhaps Ὁμηρομάστιξ ‘scourge of Homer’, which became the author's nickname). This work was chiefly devoted to severe, though often captious, criticism of the poet's invention, of the credibility of incidents (e.g. Il.