Kevin Daly
Philosophy Paper

Zeno’s Paradox I will be examining two of Zeno’s paradoxes in this paper that we have talked about in class. Zeno was a Pre-Socratic Greek philosopher in Italy from 490 BC until 430 BS. Zeno is mostly known for his paradoxes. He offered forty different paradoxes, which show support towards his mentor’s beliefs. These paradoxes have challenged the conceptions of plurality, space, and motion. But, all of them except four have been lost. These four have stayed because they were important enough for Aristotle to address. Zeno tries to argue that the belief n plurality and change is wrong. Zeno argues these points in two of his paradoxes that we discussed in class. The first is the Arrow Paradox and the second is the Achilles/Tortoise Paradox. Zeno’s main argument conveys that motion is just an illusion and there is no such thing.

The Arrow Paradox attacks the idea of motion. Arrows move from one point to another and motion can be defined as a change in place for a piece of time. Zeno argues that at any time, the arrow is at one position. He says that it is at only one position at all times, it does not move from point to point. Zeno believes that the arrow moving is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. He says that the arrow cannot move where it is because it is already there. Also, Zeno states that the arrow cannot move where it is not because no time is elapsed during this. Zeno believes that time is composed of just instants, not motion at all. Zeno tries to back this argument up by saying that we do not understand the true nature of reality correctly, but Parmenides actually does. Zeno basically goes against the idea of reason in this situation.

The Arrow Paradox is obviously completely wrong. The factual evidence of motion shows that it is wrong. Zeno attacks the idea of reason even though that there is a lot of evidence backing up that motion is real. A flying arrow is moving to a spot because it is in motion. It does not just have instants while moving to some place. This idea is a complete fallacy. Zeno does not have any evidence that makes his argument credible. There is evidence to prove that motion is real. A person can see that the arrow is moving through the air. The motion of the arrow is fast but is being moved because of the bow shooting it forward. The bow directly moves the arrow back and then shoots it forward to move. Motion is defined as a change in position of an object with respect to time and its reference point. Motion is proven through physics. Obviously Zeno did not know this back then because there was not much intellect on this situation. His example of an arrow has been proven wrong. A plane in motion would also prove his idea wrong because it shows that there is time in which it is moving.

Zeno’s premise is definitely false. The premise is that in every moment of flight, the arrow is at rest. This is false because there is no such thing as rest in the now. An arrow is not at rest while moving through the air. An arrow cannot actually be at rest because of the idea of instantaneous velocity. Instantaneous velocity proves that there is a rate of change of the position of an arrow. This rate of change shows that the arrow is moving positions while it is in the air. The scientists who proved motion to be right confirm that Zeno’s premise was completely wrong.

The second paradox that Zeno explains is the Achilles/Tortoise Paradox. This paradox starts with Achilles giving the tortoise a head start and then he tried to catch up with him. But, whenever Achilles tries to catch up to the point the turtle was at, the time has elapsed. He states that there will always remain a gap in between the two. This gap comes from the distance the turtle advances while Achilles is trying to get to the last position of the tortoise. This goes on and on and never stops. Zeno argues that Achilles will never be able to catch up to the tortoise. Zeno believes that Achilles will never catch the turtle because the turtle is always ahead of him and there are an infinite number of points Achilles has to reach where the turtle has already been. He says this because he thinks there are not plural things to begin with. He argues that there is only one thing and we are all a part of that one thing. Zeno is basically saying that both Achilles and the tortoise are moving at the same speed. This paradox connects with the arrow paradox because they both go against the idea of motion

Zeno’s Achilles/Tortoise Paradox is wrong too. This paradox is wrong because of the idea of velocity. Zeno does not use velocity in this situation. Achilles would most likely be faster than the turtle. No matter how much further the turtle is than Achilles, he would still be able to catch up. His velocity is much faster than the turtle. They do not have the same speed. Zeno’s whole argument is a fallacy. In this case, motion can prove that Zeno is wrong in this situation. The idea of motion and velocity could explain why Achilles would be able to catch up. Zeno does not take speed into account in his argument. An example to prove that Zeno’s paradox is wrong can be a race between a professional football player against me. The professional football player is much faster than me and has a much higher velocity. He could give me a very big head start but could definitely still beat me. We would not be moving at the same speed and he would be able to catch up to a position quicker than I could. Zeno’s premise is again wrong in this situation. He tries to show that Achilles would never be able to catch up to the tortoise because Achilles would always be behind for infinity. This idea claims that there is no plurality and that we are all a part of one thing. That is not true because people are different and can have different speeds. I think that Zeno is wrong because Achilles has a higher velocity than the tortoise and would be able to catch up to it and pass it.

Zeno argues against the idea of motion through his paradoxes. The two that have been explained in this paper are fallacies. The Arrow Paradox can be proven by the scientific idea of instantaneous velocity. The Achilles Paradox can be proven by velocity also. Zeno does not understand that things are in motion instead of just being in instants. Science can prove that he is wrong. Also, experiences can prove Zeno wrong. There have been many experiences of arrows, or other flying objects, in motion in the past to contradict the Arrow Paradox. In addition, there are experiences such as people catching up to another in the past that can prove the Achilles Paradox a fallacy. In conclusion, I understand where Zeno is coming from in his argument, but there is too much evidence in this time of day to prove that his paradoxes are wrong.