A Soundness Analysis of Zeno’s of Elea Dichotomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47850/RL.2021.2.4.27-42Keywords:
Zeno’s aporias, arguments against movement, Zeno’s Dichotomy, infinite sequences of acts, open interval, continuum, infinite divisibility, displacement, Benacerraf.Abstract
We are studying three basic interpretations of the Dichotomy aporia, in which Zeno tries to prove the impossibility of movement. In all these interpretations, the key assumption is the dubious statement about the impossibility of performing an infinite sequence of actions in a finite time. However, we show that in the two interpretations of the Dichotomy it is possible to get rid of the dubious key assumption, replacing it with the seemingly much more reliable assumption that covering the distance is representable as a sequence of displacements. Our approach is based on the thesis proved by P. Benacerraf that completing an infinite sequence of movements in an interpretation of the Dichotomy is not sufficient to arrive to the end of the distance.
References
Берестов, И. В. (2021). Содержит ли современный анализ затруднений с зеноновскими последовательностями решение Дихотомии? Respublica Literaria. Т. 2. № 1. С. 28-36. DOI: 10.47850/RL.2021.2.1.28-36.
Berestov, I. V. (2021). Does Contemporary Analysis of Difficulties with Zeno Sequences Contain a Solution to the Dichotomy? Respublica Literaria. Vol. 2. no. 1. pp. 28-36. DOI: 10.47850/RL.2021.2.1.28-36. (In Russ.)
Берестов, И. В. (2020). Специфика преемственности концепций в элейской философской школе. Respublica Literaria. Т. 1. № 2. С. 28-51. DOI: 10.47850/RL.2020.1.2. 28-51.
Berestov, I. V. (2020). A Feature of the Conception Inheritance in the Eleatic School of Philosophy. Respublica Literaria. Vol. 1. no. 2. pp. 28-51. DOI: 10.47850/RL.2020.1.2.28-51. (In Russ.)
Фрагменты ранних греческих философов. Ч. 1. (1989). Ред. и пер. А. В. Лебедев. М.: Наука.
Lebedev, A. V. (1989). (ed. and transl.). Fragments of Early Greek Philosophers. Part 1. Moscow. (In Russ.)
Benacerraf, P. (2001). Tasks, Supertasks, and the Modern Eleatics. In Salmon, W. C. (ed.) Zeno’s Paradoxes. Indianapolis. Hacklett. pp. 103-129. (Originally published in 1962).
Diels H., Kranz W. (Hrsg.). (1951-1952). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (=DK). Bd I–II. Die sechste Auflage. Hildesheim. Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Hawthorne, J. (2000). Before-Effect and Zeno Causality. Noûs. Vol. 34. no. 4. pp. 622-633.
Laks, A, Most, G.W. (eds. and transl.). (2016). Early Greek Philosophy. Vol. V. Part 2. Cambridge (Mass., USA). London (UK). Harvard University Press. 801 p. (Loeb Classical Library; Vol. 528)
Lee, H. P. D. (ed. and transl.) (1936). Zeno of Elea. Text, with Translation and Notes (= Lee). Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Pp. vi, 125. (Ser. Cambridge Classical Studies)
Papa-Grimaldi, A. (1996). Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno’s Paradoxes Miss the Point: Zeno’s One and Many Relation and Parmenides’ Prohibition. Review of Metaphysics. Vol. 50. no. 2. pp. 299-314.
Thomson, J. F. (1954). Tasks and Super-Tasks. Analysis. Vol. 15. pp. 1-13.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Игорь Владимирович Берестов
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://oc.philosophy.nsc.ru/remote.php/webdav/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D1%81%20%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%20RL-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2.doc
