# Zeno's paradoxes

2 Likes

Where is my italian friend @zeno ?

1 Like

He didnât post since March 16.

1 Like
1 Like

Huh? There is a first point your starting place. Also not an infinite number of movements itâs your steps. There is also an end point. If there is a starting point, end point and movement there is motion.

These arguments are garbage. Iâm not a fan of those paradoxes. I must be missing something. Motion isnât changing something itâs moving something. A far more compelling argument for motion being an illusion is some never stopping. Damn motion may be an illusion since everything is always moving. If everything is always moving there is no such thing as motion. Itâs something that just is. Now people can always pass each other like in a race. So would the true definition of motion be - moving past?

Itâs possible motion is an illusion only if everything is an illusion.

Working through this the only sound conclusion is that a lot of words donât have universal definitions especially through different schools. Because from our perception there is motion but itâs really not true with a greater understanding.

That fourth paradox while entirely confusing is the same as the racing one. A being the track b and c being the runners just running in different directions. If I ever understand correctly. The problem is that it is really two for each runner four is just the space on the track. Meaning the motion isnât really four itâs two for each runner. The space is four. Each runner is making movements. Itâs not like when youâre running you have a limited length.

If everything is moving is nothing moving? Thatâs my paradox.

You cant go a short enough distance in your steps for that to apply. You must fully stop from moving or going a distance.

These paradoxes mean to show the
truth of the philosophy of Parmenides.
Motion, change, birth and death
are illusions.

That MAY be true. At our level of perception theyâre not illusions.

My point was to see while those paradoxâs make you think theyâre not true. The simplicity of Aristotleâs means he actually believed that. The complexity of the second one means the paradoxes author didnât actually believe that. He was just trying to make you think.

I like the arrow theory, the arrow is resting but in motion, like us. Like our souls ( the God part in us)
Is getting moved by our mind, body and spirit but the light ( soul )in us in on stand still. Donât know, I love philosophy. I remember the book Sophieâs world. Thanks professor, the time part was the key I didnât understand.

1 Like

Melissus was a disciple of Parmenides.
His difference in the teaching lies
exclusively in the nature of the Being.
In Parmenides Being is a round perfect sphere,
but limited and not infinite.
In Melissus Being is infinite.

Being is changeless, motionless,
perfect round equal sphere.

Zeno really messed up with my psychotic mind in undergrad.

1 Like

Being is changeless, motionless, deathless, birthless, without cause, without effect,
without preferences, without qualities.

Nothing is born out of nothing.
Cos nothing doesnât exist.
Nothing is born out of Being,
cos being doesnât produce nor is divided
in befores and afters