English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A fundamental problem of philosophy of nature is addressed in this paper: is it possible for time to flow even if the changes that in fact go along with it did not exist? The two antique positions that are most recognized, the one of Aristotle and the one of the Stoics, are analyzed in this essay. On one hand, Aristotle’s definition of time is based on change, so his answer to the question here addressed would be negative; but, on the other hand, the Stoics argue that there are moments in which time truly flows without changes taking place, as the orthodox version of the Eternal Return states, and therefore time does not presupposes the notion of change. I here present the following hypothesis: the heterodox Stoics accepted the Aristotelian idea of time that presupposes change, an idea which they learnt from Eudemus, and that leads them to propose transcyclic changes in order to solve the problems generated by the discussion on individualization, identity and change through time.

Aristóteles, estoicos y aristotélicos: una disputa en tomo a la naturaleza del tiempo y del cambio