Zeno And Peripatetic Analysis

Good Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    George Berkeley argues that an objective reality does not exist. He argues for idealism, the belief that the external world does not exist and only the mind and ideas do, by arguing against materialism, that an objective reality does exist. Berkeley believes that an objective reality does not exist because of issues that come with materialism. However, his points do not make much sense as he relies on faulty ideas. He presents his argument by mentioning how materialism is unverifiable; that we cannot verify there is an objective reality, pointless; there is no need to posit an external world, and incoherent; our senses cannot be external objects.…

    • 1136 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One of the problems with arguing the existence of a material substance independent of the mind is that there is nowhere for it to exist. “That it exists not in the mind is agreed; and that it exists not in place is no less certain—since all place or extension exists only in the mind, as hath been already proved. It remains therefore that it exists nowhere at all” (Berkeley 86). By using matter to prove the existence of an object outside of the mind another contradiction is established. Since primary sensible qualities being extension, place, motion, number, figure, etc., are proven to exist within the mind, there is no place for matter to exist.…

    • 1078 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The idea that a world is a single object that does not change or move at all did not appear to sit well with other philosophers in that time. This led to philosophers like Empedocles and The Atomist coming up with their own well-crafted ideas to refute Parmenides. Empedocles’ idea of there being objects called roots and forces that allow change and are responsible for our perceptions being one of them, and the Atomist idea that an infinite number of atoms that also allow change and are responsible for perception. The Atomists even directly contradicted Parmenides by arguing for the existence of a “void”, an empty space that allows movement among the atoms to exist. Parmenides clearly asked the questions that would spark debate among philosophers for centuries to come, that is what makes him one of the most influential philosophers of his…

    • 1603 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Avicenna in his major work Kitab Al-Najat argues that the human soul is not material. He argues that the rational faculty, namely the soul, does not know through physical organ. In this sense, he can prove that the soul is not inhered in the material body, therefore indicating that the soul is immaterial. Avicenna argued in Kitab Al-Najat that “for there is no organ between the rational faculty and itself, nor does one intervene between it and its organ or between it and the fact that it knows”. (Avicenna, 51) As in his previous argument and experience, the rational faculty has direct access to the knowledge of itself without any intermediary.…

    • 725 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Parmenides two principles state that “what-is” is and there cannot be a “what-is-not” because it is unthinkable, and therefore should be disregarded because it has no being. Parmenides backs up these principles, using very sound arguments; the three main ones being “what-is” is ungenerated, complete, and fixed. Several logical premises are further given to withhold these “signs of truth”. For instance, in Fragment 8, on the principle that “what-is” is the only thing that can be, “what-is” must be ungenerated. For if it was created, it would have spawned from something else, which does not make sense because only “what-is” is.…

    • 1562 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The concept of the noumenon is something that is specifically meant to be thought of purely as a thing in itself, and not as an object of the senses. This happens through pure understanding. This concept is non-contradictory, which is problematic for Kant. He defines this concept as problematic, because it is connected with cognitions; and the objective reality of these can in no way actually be cognized. The concept of noumenon is non-contradictory as it cannot emphasize sensibility by demonstrating it is the only possible kind of intuition.…

    • 1787 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Relations of ideas are beliefs that refers to states of affair within the mind; they are capable of demonstration because they have no external referent (Kemerling). Matters of fact are beliefs that refer to states of affairs in the world; they are always contingent (Kemerling). For example, mathematical and logical knowledge relies upon relations of ideas, while propositions of natural science depend upon matters of fact. However, because most of our belief rests upon matters of fact, Hume was determined to explain their origin. Hume believed that since each idea is distinct and separable from every other, there is no self-evident relation and that these connections can only be derived from our experience of similar cases.…

    • 1969 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    There can be no relation between the two, because, as Maimonides stated, “For one of the properties of two correlated things is the possibility of inverting the statement concerning them while preserving their respective relations” (377). Given that God and creation have profoundly different types of existences, there can be no relation between them. To predicate a relation between God and man is to imply that God and man are part of the same…

    • 1446 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In his reading of Locke, Berkeley states that Locke's’ description of the abstraction process as encompassing “all and none.” Berkeley outlines the contradiction that object or idea cannot posses both all and none of the same qualities. Because there exists a contradiction within Locke's argument, Berkeley asserts, that the doctrine of abstraction is flawed and therefore impossible. However, it is in this example it becomes apparent that Berkeley mis-interprets Locke’s doctrine. Perhaps in angst to defeat abstraction, Berkeley gets tripped up on Locke’s wording. Abstraction only deals with the subtraction of the differences, but keeps the commonalities between…

    • 2049 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Descartes famously defended the Cartesian dualist view. This view being that the mind and body are separate. They are separate in terms of substance, because they share no property with one another. Descartes first proposed the idea of doubting existence. He touched on the idea that he could doubt that his physical experiences, that his body was really there.…

    • 1034 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays