The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists: The Greek tradition and its many heirs

(Ron) #1

Ed.: MSR 1 (1864) 156–157, 299–300.
Hultsch (1882) 8, 339–340; RE 5.1 (1905) 712, Idem; BNP 4 (2004) 445 (#19), M. Folkerts.
Mauro de Nardis


Diodo ̄ros (Empir.) (1st c. BCE)


The Diodo ̄ros mentioned by G in his list of Empirical physicians in MM (10.142 K.)
is probably to be identified with the Diodo ̄ros author of Empirica mentioned by P for a
property of basil (20.119), and as a source for Books 29–30 (and for a remedy at 29.142).
Other remedies are mentioned by Gale ̄n at CMLoc 5.3 (12.834 K.: via K), 9.2 (13.248
K.) and 10.3 (13.361 K.: via A P.) and CMGen 5.15 (13.857 K.). It is
possible that he belonged to the school of H  T.


Ed.: Deichgräber (1930) 203–204 (fragments), 261.
RE 5.1 (1901) 708 (#50), M. Wellmann.
Fabio Stok


D  A ⇒ D  T


Diodo ̄ros of Ephesos (ca 400 BCE – ca 200 CE)


Wrote on E’ imitation of A’ pomposity: D L,
8.70.


FGrHist 1102.
PTK


Diodo ̄ros of Eretria (ca 400 – 350 BCE)


H, Ref. 1.2.12–13, cites Diodo ̄ros, along with A, for the tale that
P learned dualism from Z. Probably, Aristoxenos cited Diodo ̄ros.


FGrHist 1103.
PTK


Diodo ̄ros of Iasos, “Kronos” (ca 320 – 284 BCE)


Lived in both Athens and Alexandria (the nickname Kronos, “Old Fool,” inherited from
his teacher Apollo ̄nios Kronos), was the teacher of Z  K and the logician
Philo, and was known as a brilliant dialectician. Recently some have seen him as a
leading member of a school called Dialectical, in contrast to his traditional placing
among the Megarian school; but the evidence is inconclusive. He was important for a
view of the truth-conditions for conditionals, for his arguments against motion, and for
the so-called Master Argument, which defines the possible as what is or will be the case,
blurring the distinction between a fixed or necessary past and a future open with possi-
bilities; it was highly influential on Hellenistic debates on necessity and possibility.
Regarding motion, he argued that it can never truly be said that something is moving, but
only that something has moved (S Adv Math. 10.85–87); the arguments employ a
conception of motion and time as consisting of minimal partless units, as opposed to
continuous and in principle infinitely divisible (as A held: Physics 6.1– 2
[231a21–233b32]).


DIODO ̄ROS (EMPIR.)
Free download pdf