Zeno was one of the most wise ancient philosophers. Zeno used a paradoxical approach to represent his intriguing arguments. Some of his most famous antinomies are against plurality and motion. Zeno’s arguments were preserved by Aristotle in the context of his own discussion. Zeno made 4 arguments related to motion, namely- The dichotomy argument, the achilles, the arrow and the moving rows arguments. The argument that will be given emphasis in this essay is the arrow argument related to motion. In this arrow argument, he asks us to imagine a flying arrow and shows through the example of this arrow how nothing is in motion. He does this by relating motion to concepts of temporal periods, temporal instants, spaces and others.
Zeno’s third argument concerning motion has been divided into two fragments and is as follows, “Zeno argues fallaciously; for if, he says, everything always rests when it is against what is equal, and what is in locomotion is always in the now, the arrow in locomotion is motionless. But this is false, for time is not composed of indivisible ‘nows’, no more than is any other magnitude.” (Aristotle Physics 6.9, 239b30-33) The second part of his argument as follows “ The third [argument concerning motion] is the one just mentioned, that the arrow in locomotion is at rest. This follows from assuming that time is composed of ‘nows’; for if that is not granted, the conclusion will not follow.” (Aristotle Physics 6.9, 239b30-33)
For a better understanding, there is a need to understand the difference between a temporal instant and a temporal period in time. A temporal instant can be looked at as an unextended point in time. For example- a period in time like 9 am. Suppose one asks how long is 9 am? There would be...
... middle of paper ...
...for denying the existence of motion. This would eventually be in agreement with Zeno.
To conclude, Zeno argued very well about his views concerning motion. His antinomies may seem absurd at first, but after a clear understanding they seem very logical. The arrow argument certainly had some critics but Zeno responded to those critics very well and was successful in arguing against the existence of motion.
References
Makin, Stephen (1998). Zeno of Elea. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge.
Palmer, John (2012) "Zeno of Elea", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
Warren, James (2007) ‘Presocratics’, Acumen Publishing, Durham. Pg 103-110
Aristotle, Physics, from 'The Complete Works of Aristotle: Revised Oxford Translation) edited Jonathan Barnes (Princeton University Press, 1984; two volumes).
Plato, and G. M. A. Grube. "Phaedo." Five Dialogues. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2002. 93-
Braund, Susanna Morton. “Virgil and the Cosmos: Religious and Philosophical Ideas.” The Cambridge Companion to Virgil. Charles Martindale, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. 204-221.
In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Aristotle’s argument from Physics Book 2, chapter 8, 199a9. Aristotle in this chapter tries to make an analogy between nature and action to establish that both, nature and action, have an end.
In the Stoic account of physics, all things identified, debated, discussed and pondered fall strictly into certain categories in the Stoic ontological structure. Of the three branches of the very broad category of ‘somethings,’ the two most relevant to this paper are bodies and incorporeals. The rigid conception of Physics as articulated by the Stoics seems to use the incorporeal somethings as a means to categorize, locate, and evaluate those things which are bodily. In their incorporeals, the Stoics include lekta (which I will discuss later, as it is an integral part of their causality), void, place and time. Stoic causality, a largely deterministic discussion of events in a fated world, discusses the alteration of bodies without defining any bodies as effects. In characterizing the effects of causation as only lekta, I believe the Stoics have left themselves with an incomplete discussion of causality. By showing that an effect of a particular cause may incorporate both incorporeal and bodily aspects, I hope to provide a more acceptable account of causation while demonstrating various holes in the Stoic account.
In the first part, Aquinas states that the existence of god is not self-evident, meaning that reason alone without appealing to faith can give a good set of reasons to believe. To support this claim, Aquinas refers to “The Argument of Motion”, proposing that:
Budziszewski’s explanation of Aquinas begins in Unit II and is “probably the chapter most sought after by those who are interested in Aquinas’s” (Rodriguez) view on natural law. To understand the differences between Aquinas and Aristotle one must first have a brief understanding of Aristotle’s view on natural law.
Plato. The Trials of Socrates. “Crito.” Translated by Reeve, C. D. C.. 2002 edition: p62-78.
Epictetus. "Encheiridion." Ancient Philosophy. 31 Ed. Philosophic Classics, vols. 1. Baird, Forrest E., and Walter Kaufman. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2000.
Through Descartes’s Meditations, he sought to reconstruct his life and the beliefs he had. He wanted to end up with beliefs that were completely justified and conclusively proven. In order to obtain his goal, Descartes had to doubt all of his foundational beliefs so that he could start over. This left Descartes doubting the reality of the world around him and even his own existence. In order to build up to new conclusively proven and justified true beliefs, Descartes needed a fixed and undeniable starting point. This starting point was his cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” In this paper I will argue that Descartes’s argument that he is definite of his own existence, is unsound.
Baird, Forrest E., and Walter Kaufman. "Aristotle." Ancient Philosophy. 3rd ed. Philosophic Classics, vols. 1. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2000. 304 - 444.
Since airs are variable, we must settle on specific choices in given circumstances that we might not make in different circumstances. Alternate segments of the spirit are not variable in the same way. This is vital to Aristotle's postulation in light of the fact that these decisions are conne...
"Plato." The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces, Volume I. 6th ed. NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1992. 726-746.
from Motion, tries to prove the existence of God as the first mover which is unmoved.
Baird, Forrest E. Philosophic Classics Volume 1 Ancient Philosophy Third Edition Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ; 2000
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes seeks to prove that corporeal objects exist. This argument is put forth based on the principles and supposed facts he has built up throughout the Meditations. In order to fully understand his argument for the existence of corporeal things, one must trace his earlier arguments for effects and their causes, the existence of God, the nature of God, and his ability to never make mistakes.