{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"780","_score":null,"_source":{"id":780,"authors_free":[{"id":1145,"entry_id":780,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":3,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Abraham, William E.","free_first_name":"William E.","free_last_name":"Abraham","norm_person":{"id":3,"first_name":"William E.","last_name":"Abraham","full_name":"Abraham, William E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120967007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1","main_title":{"title":"The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1"},"abstract":"Simplicius has preserved (Phys. 140, 34) a Zenonian argument purporting to show that if an object of positive magnitude has parts from \r\nwhich it derives its size, then any such object must be at once of \r\ninfinite magnitude and zero magnitude. This surprising consequence \r\nis based upon a construction which Zeno makes, but his argument is \r\nwidely thought to be grossly fallacious. Most often he is supposed to \r\nhave misunderstood the arithmetic of his own construction. Evidently, \r\nany such charge must be premised on some view of the particular \r\nnature of the sequence to which Zeno's construction gives rise. I seek \r\nto develop a view that Zeno's argument is in fact free from fallacy, \r\nand offer reason to fear that his real argument has usually been missed. [p. 40]","btype":3,"date":"1972","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QHBs8Wv701RyPQh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":3,"full_name":"Abraham, William E.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":780,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"17","issue":"1","pages":"40-52"}},"sort":["The Nature of Zeno's Argument against Plurality in DK 29 B 1"]}