Zenos paradoxes constitute an assault on common sense Is the assault successful?

Zeno of Elea was a philosopher born around 490BC. It is widely suggested that he and fellow philosopher Parmenides were close and possibly were student and teacher respectively. The paradoxes of Zeno are often described as responses to criticisms of Parmenidean monism, to show that a belief in plurality leads to illogical conclusions about movement. These paradoxes work by denying that movement exists and consequentially have been interpreted as an assault on the audiences common sense, in that we assume motion happens because we experience and perceive it. In order to determine whether or not the paradoxes suggested by Zeno are an assault on common sense, we must first look at the implications of the term assault in the question. When it is first read, it may be interpreted with very negative connotations, as though Zeno has set out to confuse and attack the audiences own senses and force out of them an admittance that he is right and they are wrong. However, it has also been suggested that all Zeno was doing was defending Parmenides ideas with a logical argument that he thought simply required an equally logical counter argument from a critic (which as several attempted, including Aristotle, was easier said than done) rather than seeking to throw into question his audiences own ideas of reality.1 In this interpretation it appears that Zenos intention was far from assaulting common sense, although the conclusions drawn from his paradoxes still appear to call into question our senses and perceptions by their very nature. The Achilles and the tortoise paradox seen in T3 of Waterfield2seeks to prove that motion is impossible by presenting the audience with the idea that despite his athletic ability, Achilles in an infinite race with a tortoise would never be able to catch it as in order for him to overtake the tortoise he must first reach the point where the tortoise is. Since the tortoise will also move to a new point while Achilles is running, Zeno says that Achilles can never catch the tortoise, as it will always have moved a tiny amount in the time that Achilles takes to move and therefore initiates an infinite series of increasingly small catch-ups for Achilles. This paradox is by nature an assault on common sense, simply because we all assume that an athlete could easily beat a tortoise in a race. Also, if we only take into account Zenos argument, without thinking for ourselves, the idea of Achilles never being able to overtake a tortoise does seem to become worryingly plausible, and thus the assault on our own common sense begins. Despite this, Zenos attempted assault on our common sense should in fact be completely unsuccessful. To begin with, our common sense tells us the audience that if Achilles and a tortoise were to have a race, Achilles would win. This is because unlike what is suggested by Zeno, Achilles is moving at a near constant pace for a finite distance, this means that the series of catch-ups cannot last forever in any
1 2

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/ on 04/11/11 Waterfield, R. (2009) The First Philosophers pg 76

case. The fact that Achilles would, in a real race, be moving at constant speed also contradicts Zenos argument, as he does not have to stop at the point where the tortoise was and then catch it up again. The race is also seen by our common sense as Achilles reaching and overtaking the tortoise, rather than reaching the point where the tortoise was, as that point would be crossed anyway as he catches up to the tortoise. Aristotle in Physics states that It is not caught as long as it is in front, but it still is caught if Zeno grants that a moving object can traverse a finite distance3 Here Aristotle is suggesting that since a moving object can physically only travel a finite distance, the infinite series of catch-ups can never occur and the tortoise will be caught. The assault on common sense here is unsuccessful largely because of assumptions that Zeno makes in the paradox. Yes, it is true that for Achilles to overtake the tortoise he must pass the point at which the tortoise was, but our common sense simply tells us that he can then carry on running at his constant speed until he has passed the tortoise, making the assault unsuccessful. The Achilles and the tortoise argument could therefore be more of an explanation of the principles behind Zenos defence of monism than an actual assault on common sense as it has a real-world application that makes it difficult for an audience to comprehend the paradox. The Dichotomy paradox is similar, in that it refers to the inability of one to pass through an infinite number of spaces in a finite time. Aristotle in his Physics suggests that the solution to this is that if the distance to be traversed is infinitely divisible, so is the time taken to come into contact with an infinite number of things and thus the distance could be traversed.4 Even with this explanation, the Dichotomy paradox still presents a much more successful assault on common sense, in that in order to complete the journey, an infinite amount of time would have to be taken to reach point B. Our common sense of course tells us that this argument doesnt make sense because we go from point A to point B everyday without requiring an infinite amount of time to do it. But do we? Zeno suggests that the distance from point C to B is infinitely divisible, because there is always the possibility of dividing something by two. What occurs are an infinite number of increasingly tiny distances tiny distances between point C and B. Suppose that these distances become so inconceivably tiny that they cease to matter. Our common sense would tell us proudly that we have arrived at point B, whereas in actual fact there are still an infinite number of tiny distances for us to pass through before we truly meet point B. These distances are so small that in practice they would be irrelevant, so our common sense would dictate that we have reached our destination. This truly is a successful assault on common sense, as since point B must be a point as specific as all of the others on the scale, it can never be precisely reached, although we take it for granted that it has been. The controversy from this argument comes from the face that A to C is easily accomplished, so C to B (an equal distance) should be too. This issue can be resolved by expanding the paradox. In order to go from A to C, again, an infinite number of points must be Waterfield, R. (2009) The First Philosophers pg 76, Aristotle, Physics 239b5240a18 Ross 4 Waterfield, R. (2009) The First Philosophers pg 75, Aristotle Physics 233a21-31 Ross
3

crossed as well. This makes the paradox a successful assault on common sense and what the audience holds to be true in the world around them. Another of Zenos paradoxes is known as the Arrow paradox. In this, Zeno suggests that time can be split into a series of nows or moments, all of which essentially contain a still of the image we think are seeing moving. Rather than moving through space then, Zeno suggests that what we perceive is simply like watching a flick book of these nows disappearing and reappearing in different points in space. Aristotles opinion of the paradox in Physics seems somewhat weak, saying that the argument only works if it is granted that time consists solely of these nows5 This argument seems the most intended to defend monism of the three that have been mentioned by presenting an argument against motion and challenging others to come up with a counter argument6, a feat, as shown by Aristotle, that was apparently easier said than done. Our common sense tells us that motion happens, but Zenos theory still holds true to this, if these nows last 0s then perhaps they happen too quickly for us to even register, and the result is the illusion of motion. This assault, if it is intended as an assault, rather than simply forwarding a point of view, does therefore appear very successful. Like the Dichotomy paradox, despite what our senses tell us, the theory of the paradox itself appears to disprove what we register and thus our common sense is successfully assaulted. Overall in these three paradoxes, the latter two seem to have the most successful assaults on common sense, as they call into question our senses themselves and how we perceive the world around us. The Achilles and tortoise example seems all too real for us to imagine a different outcome to the one which we all, through our common sense, know will happen. The other two however do, even in modern times, make complete sense, even if one does suggest that every time we move we flicker in and out of existence, how can we know that this isnt what is happening. Zenos paradoxes assault our common sense by contradicting what we think we know about the world around us and the paradigms that help us to justify what we experience. Because of this I believe that largely Zenos assault on our common sense is successful. Ed Iball

Waterfield, R. (2009) The First Philosophers pg 76, Aristotle, Physics 239b5240a18 Ross 6 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/ on 04/11/11
5