| 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) |
| These questions are difficult to answer; but I think that the difficulty of answering them shows that we should not be too dogmatic about the general interpretation of the fragment. It looks to me—and apparently it looked to Burnet and Zeller also—as if the argument is in the form of a dialectical refutation of pluralist assumptions. Vlastos and Raven see it in a different light; they are entitled to their opinion, but it should be clearly realized that it is an opinion, and not a certainty. [conclusion p. 65] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vYpN7DrahtfkniN |
{"_index":"sire","_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":"These questions are difficult to answer; but I think that the difficulty of answering them shows that we should not be too dogmatic about the general interpretation of the fragment. It looks to me\u2014and apparently it looked to Burnet and Zeller also\u2014as if the argument is in the form of a dialectical refutation of pluralist assumptions. Vlastos and Raven see it in a different light; they are entitled to their opinion, but it should be clearly realized that it is an opinion, and not a certainty. [conclusion p. 65]","btype":3,"date":"1958","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vYpN7DrahtfkniN","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]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FZ61i36oW94Hvew |
{"_index":"sire","_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\/FZ61i36oW94Hvew","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]}
| 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) |
These questions are difficult to answer; but I think that the difficulty of answering them shows that we should not be too dogmatic about the general interpretation of the fragment. It looks to me—and apparently it looked to Burnet and Zeller also—as if the argument is in the form of a dialectical refutation of pluralist assumptions. Vlastos and Raven see it in a different light; they are entitled to their opinion, but it should be clearly realized that it is an opinion, and not a certainty. [conclusion p. 65] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vYpN7DrahtfkniN |
{"_index":"sire","_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":"These questions are difficult to answer; but I think that the difficulty of answering them shows that we should not be too dogmatic about the general interpretation of the fragment. It looks to me\u2014and apparently it looked to Burnet and Zeller also\u2014as if the argument is in the form of a dialectical refutation of pluralist assumptions. Vlastos and Raven see it in a different light; they are entitled to their opinion, but it should be clearly realized that it is an opinion, and not a certainty. [conclusion p. 65]","btype":3,"date":"1958","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vYpN7DrahtfkniN","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?"]}
| 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FZ61i36oW94Hvew |
{"_index":"sire","_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\/FZ61i36oW94Hvew","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?"]}