Type of Media 1
Author 1
Date 7
Author
Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?, 1958
By: Booth, N. B.
Title Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1958
Journal The American Journal of Philology
Volume 79
Issue 1
Pages 61-65
Categories no categories
Author(s) Booth, N. B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
G. Vlastos, in Gnomon, XXV (1953), pp. 34-5, claims that he (and J. E. Raven before him) have laid to rest "the alleged corporeality of Melissean Being in the grave which contains Burnet's famous dogma of Eleatic materialism." There is a surprising finality about this claim of Vlastos', and it behooves his critics to consider whether such finality is justified. I think myself that, while Vlastos' arguments are forceful and well ex- pressed, they still fail to carry absolute conviction; and in this brief discussion I shall try to set out the reasons for my scepticism. [p. 61]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"769","_score":null,"_source":{"id":769,"authors_free":[{"id":1133,"entry_id":769,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":10,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Booth, N. B.","free_first_name":"N. B.","free_last_name":"Booth","norm_person":{"id":10,"first_name":"N. B.","last_name":"Booth","full_name":"Booth, N. B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?","main_title":{"title":"Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?"},"abstract":"G. Vlastos, in Gnomon, XXV (1953), pp. 34-5, claims that \r\nhe (and J. E. Raven before him) have laid to rest \"the alleged \r\ncorporeality of Melissean Being in the grave which contains \r\nBurnet's famous dogma of Eleatic materialism.\" There is a \r\nsurprising finality about this claim of Vlastos', and it behooves \r\nhis critics to consider whether such finality is justified. I think \r\nmyself that, while Vlastos' arguments are forceful and well ex- \r\npressed, they still fail to carry absolute conviction; and in this \r\nbrief discussion I shall try to set out the reasons for my \r\nscepticism. [p. 61]","btype":3,"date":"1958","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0OSvPVeLSMxRqoo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":10,"full_name":"Booth, N. B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":769,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"79","issue":"1","pages":"61-65"}},"sort":[1958]}

Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?, 1957
By: Booth, N.B.
Title Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1957
Journal Phronesis
Volume 2
Issue 1
Pages 1-9
Categories no categories
Author(s) Booth, N.B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
This article by N. B. Booth examines whether Zeno's arguments were a response to criticisms of Parmenides's principle „the One“. Despite evidence that Zeno was concerned with defending Parmenides's „One“, his arguments about plurality seem to refute the "ones" of a plurality. One possible explanation is that Zeno's arguments were used to counter criticisms of Parmenides's „One“ before he produced them. Plato's Parmenides includes a passage in which "Zeno" apologizes for his book on plurality, which has been interpreted as an answer to criticisms of Parmenides's theory, but Booth notes that Plato's characters are idealized and it is not certain that Zeno's arguments were a response to attacks. Booth looks at the arguments themselves for evidence and suggests that if some of Zeno's arguments against plural "ones" were valid against Parmenides's „One“, it would be fair to infer that they were used by hostile critics and Zeno was throwing them back in their faces. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1127","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1127,"authors_free":[{"id":1702,"entry_id":1127,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":10,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Booth, N.B.","free_first_name":"N.B.","free_last_name":"Booth","norm_person":{"id":10,"first_name":"N. B.","last_name":"Booth","full_name":"Booth, N. B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?","main_title":{"title":"Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?"},"abstract":"This article by N. B. Booth examines whether Zeno's arguments were a response to criticisms of Parmenides's principle \u201ethe One\u201c. Despite evidence that Zeno was concerned with defending Parmenides's \u201eOne\u201c, his arguments about plurality seem to refute the \"ones\" of a plurality. One possible explanation is that Zeno's arguments were used to counter criticisms of Parmenides's \u201eOne\u201c before he produced them. Plato's Parmenides includes a passage in which \"Zeno\" apologizes for his book on plurality, which has been interpreted as an answer to criticisms of Parmenides's theory, but Booth notes that Plato's characters are idealized and it is not certain that Zeno's arguments were a response to attacks. Booth looks at the arguments themselves for evidence and suggests that if some of Zeno's arguments against plural \"ones\" were valid against Parmenides's \u201eOne\u201c, it would be fair to infer that they were used by hostile critics and Zeno was throwing them back in their faces. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1957","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Z24XRGSFJxejYPK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":10,"full_name":"Booth, N. B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1127,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"2","issue":"1","pages":"1-9"}},"sort":[1957]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?, 1958
By: Booth, N. B.
Title Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1958
Journal The American Journal of Philology
Volume 79
Issue 1
Pages 61-65
Categories no categories
Author(s) Booth, N. B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s) 
G.  Vlastos,  in  Gnomon, XXV (1953), pp.  34-5,  claims  that 
he  (and  J.  E.  Raven before him)  have laid  to  rest  "the  alleged 
corporeality  of Melissean  Being in the grave  which  contains 
Burnet's  famous  dogma  of  Eleatic  materialism." There  is a 
surprising  finality  about this  claim  of  Vlastos',  and  it  behooves 
his  critics to  consider whether such finality  is  justified. I  think 
myself  that,  while  Vlastos'  arguments are  forceful  and  well  ex- 
pressed, they  still  fail  to  carry absolute conviction;  and  in  this 
brief discussion I shall try to set out the reasons  for my 
scepticism. [p. 61]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"769","_score":null,"_source":{"id":769,"authors_free":[{"id":1133,"entry_id":769,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":10,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Booth, N. B.","free_first_name":"N. B.","free_last_name":"Booth","norm_person":{"id":10,"first_name":"N. B.","last_name":"Booth","full_name":"Booth, N. B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?","main_title":{"title":"Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?"},"abstract":"G. Vlastos, in Gnomon, XXV (1953), pp. 34-5, claims that \r\nhe (and J. E. Raven before him) have laid to rest \"the alleged \r\ncorporeality of Melissean Being in the grave which contains \r\nBurnet's famous dogma of Eleatic materialism.\" There is a \r\nsurprising finality about this claim of Vlastos', and it behooves \r\nhis critics to consider whether such finality is justified. I think \r\nmyself that, while Vlastos' arguments are forceful and well ex- \r\npressed, they still fail to carry absolute conviction; and in this \r\nbrief discussion I shall try to set out the reasons for my \r\nscepticism. [p. 61]","btype":3,"date":"1958","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0OSvPVeLSMxRqoo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":10,"full_name":"Booth, N. B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":769,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The American Journal of Philology","volume":"79","issue":"1","pages":"61-65"}},"sort":["Did Melissus Believe in Incorporeal Being?"]}

Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?, 1957
By: Booth, N.B.
Title Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?
Type Article
Language English
Date 1957
Journal Phronesis
Volume 2
Issue 1
Pages 1-9
Categories no categories
Author(s) Booth, N.B.
Editor(s)
Translator(s) 
This article by N. B. Booth examines whether Zeno's arguments were a response to criticisms of Parmenides's principle „the One“. Despite evidence that Zeno was concerned with defending Parmenides's „One“, his arguments about plurality seem to refute the "ones" of a plurality. One possible explanation is that Zeno's arguments were used to counter criticisms of Parmenides's „One“ before he produced them. Plato's Parmenides includes a passage in which "Zeno" apologizes for his book on plurality, which has been interpreted as an answer to criticisms of Parmenides's theory, but Booth notes that Plato's characters are idealized and it is not certain that Zeno's arguments were a response to attacks. Booth looks at the arguments themselves for evidence and suggests that if some of Zeno's arguments against plural "ones" were valid against Parmenides's „One“, it would be fair to infer that they were used by hostile critics and Zeno was throwing them back in their faces. [introduction]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1127","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1127,"authors_free":[{"id":1702,"entry_id":1127,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":10,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Booth, N.B.","free_first_name":"N.B.","free_last_name":"Booth","norm_person":{"id":10,"first_name":"N. B.","last_name":"Booth","full_name":"Booth, N. B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?","main_title":{"title":"Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?"},"abstract":"This article by N. B. Booth examines whether Zeno's arguments were a response to criticisms of Parmenides's principle \u201ethe One\u201c. Despite evidence that Zeno was concerned with defending Parmenides's \u201eOne\u201c, his arguments about plurality seem to refute the \"ones\" of a plurality. One possible explanation is that Zeno's arguments were used to counter criticisms of Parmenides's \u201eOne\u201c before he produced them. Plato's Parmenides includes a passage in which \"Zeno\" apologizes for his book on plurality, which has been interpreted as an answer to criticisms of Parmenides's theory, but Booth notes that Plato's characters are idealized and it is not certain that Zeno's arguments were a response to attacks. Booth looks at the arguments themselves for evidence and suggests that if some of Zeno's arguments against plural \"ones\" were valid against Parmenides's \u201eOne\u201c, it would be fair to infer that they were used by hostile critics and Zeno was throwing them back in their faces. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1957","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Z24XRGSFJxejYPK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":10,"full_name":"Booth, N. B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1127,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"2","issue":"1","pages":"1-9"}},"sort":["Were Zeno's Arguments a Reply to Attacks upon Parmenides?"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1