Abstract

According to the orthodox interpretation of Zeno's plurality paradoxes defended by Platonists, these arguments indirectly defend Parmenidean monism by showing that things are not many. But Simplicius, and the various other orthodox interpreters whom he discusses, were aware of and attempted to undermine a competing ‘heterodox’ interpretations, which were prominent in the peripatetic tradition, according to which some of Zeno’s arguments pose a threat to, or even specifically target, Parmenides. I argue that our surviving peripatetic reports according to which Zeno challenged the idea that any being qualifies as a 'one' are credible and that attempts by ancient orthodox interpreters to accommodate these heterodox reports are not successful.