The text contains two information: one is Zeno’s idea, and the other is the difference between Zeno and Platonists and Peripatetics.
Firstly, Zeno is Stoic and he is the founder of stoicism. As the text explained, the Stoics think that it was totally impossible that something incorporeal should be the agent of anything, and that only a body was capable of acting or of being acted upon.
According to their theory, the ideas are the concepts of the human mind. Since concepts are not substantial, that is, incorporeal, the ideas do not have their existence in themselves; rather, concepts are similar to substance and qualities and we, ourselves, take part in the establishment of concepts. Zeno denied not only the existence of the intelligible transcendent …show more content…
First, there are also some similarities between Zeno and the Platonists and Peripatetics. Platonists admit that being is a body, and the corporeality of the soul. Moreover, Peripatetics acknowledge that soul is the principle of life in the organic body, and is inseparable from the body. Plus, Peripatetics attack on Plato and rejected the abstractness of the form, which could be also means that the form is incorporeal. This shows that in some part, the Peripatetics admit the corporeality of the form.
Second, the text could arise some misunderstandings that there are no any incorporeal things in this world. In fact, some abstract stuff like time is included in the incorporeal things and it does ‘subsist’ not exists. Connected to the former sentence, we cannot explain ‘all things’ by something corporeal. As I mentioned just before, the time is not corporeal, and that is, the time does not exist, but the fact that we can perceive and tell about the time indicates that the time also has a consistent existential formality as ‘a thing’. The very ‘a thing’ is incorporeal and although it does not exist, we could not say it is totally nothing or completely does not exist, so the Stoics say it …show more content…
Also, identifying soul and body is somewhat convincing, in that the mortality of the soul are relative with the death. According to the Stoics, the death is a part of the natural rule of the universe and it is inevitable. The attachment to the ‘eternity’ of the life and denying the death come from inadequate understanding about the soul, I think, that human soul is immortal and could be alive even after the death. Unlike them, the Stoics admit the mortality of the soul by associating it with the body and could remove the attachment. So, from the Stoics, what we have to do is to concentrate on the things that we can change. From these views, the text has some interesting points while it also has weak
Firstly, Zeno is Stoic and he is the founder of stoicism. As the text explained, the Stoics think that it was totally impossible that something incorporeal should be the agent of anything, and that only a body was capable of acting or of being acted upon.
According to their theory, the ideas are the concepts of the human mind. Since concepts are not substantial, that is, incorporeal, the ideas do not have their existence in themselves; rather, concepts are similar to substance and qualities and we, ourselves, take part in the establishment of concepts. Zeno denied not only the existence of the intelligible transcendent …show more content…
First, there are also some similarities between Zeno and the Platonists and Peripatetics. Platonists admit that being is a body, and the corporeality of the soul. Moreover, Peripatetics acknowledge that soul is the principle of life in the organic body, and is inseparable from the body. Plus, Peripatetics attack on Plato and rejected the abstractness of the form, which could be also means that the form is incorporeal. This shows that in some part, the Peripatetics admit the corporeality of the form.
Second, the text could arise some misunderstandings that there are no any incorporeal things in this world. In fact, some abstract stuff like time is included in the incorporeal things and it does ‘subsist’ not exists. Connected to the former sentence, we cannot explain ‘all things’ by something corporeal. As I mentioned just before, the time is not corporeal, and that is, the time does not exist, but the fact that we can perceive and tell about the time indicates that the time also has a consistent existential formality as ‘a thing’. The very ‘a thing’ is incorporeal and although it does not exist, we could not say it is totally nothing or completely does not exist, so the Stoics say it …show more content…
Also, identifying soul and body is somewhat convincing, in that the mortality of the soul are relative with the death. According to the Stoics, the death is a part of the natural rule of the universe and it is inevitable. The attachment to the ‘eternity’ of the life and denying the death come from inadequate understanding about the soul, I think, that human soul is immortal and could be alive even after the death. Unlike them, the Stoics admit the mortality of the soul by associating it with the body and could remove the attachment. So, from the Stoics, what we have to do is to concentrate on the things that we can change. From these views, the text has some interesting points while it also has weak