Blog #2: Zeno is... not deserving of modern readership (but I liked Plato's ideas)

Prior to this class, I had spent great amounts of time and energy  meditating on theatre as a medium for activism, so I find it fascinating to see Boal connect this theme to ancient philosophers. While I don't see the connection/importance of all of these sages, the connections to Plato made a great deal of sense to me. 

I've never studied Plato in great depth, but have always found his ideas fascinating when I hear them - and the connection to theatre as a medium for social change (or suppression of such change) makes great sense to me. If only ideas are perfect (as plato postulates), then portrayals of human faults and real-life departures from perfection certainly have potential for catharsis - especially when structured as Boal explains (in terms of plot progression in tragedies, leading up to the cathartic moment/catastrophe. And, in controlling an audiences emotions, I can see how Aristotle may have engaged in subtle manipulation. If humans are aware of their imperfections and the imperfections of the world, then tapping into those realities has great potential for both art and manipulation. 

That said - I do not at all understand the point of talking about many of the other sages mentioned. Even Boal clearly understands that they were largely nutty! He even mocks them rather openly - specifically Zeno, - and with good cause. Giving context to Aristotle might require Plato, but do you guys see the connection between Boal's critique of Aristotle and the odd concept that having a bow shot at you is entirely safe because an arrow in motion can't possibly exist?