The Motionless Arrow: Aristotle's Thoughts on Zeno's Arror Argument
Aristotle's thoughts on Zeno's Arrow Argument as represented in Chapter
9 of Aristotle's Physics: A Guided Study can be understood in such a way that it might not be "next door to madness". In this chapter, Aristotle interprets
Zeno's argument of the Flying Arrow as "missing the mark". There are four premises for this argument, and in Aristotle's opinion, premise three can be rejected. He does not believe that time is composed of indivisible nows, which he proves with laws of science. However, by evaluating the falsity of premise three, you will find that premises one and two are also false. Almost all opinions can be argued, however, and by evaluating the philosophy of both men, many points can be reached about the validity and soundness of the argument.
Though, by finding the premises false, the argument is not sound, and therefore,
Zeno's argument leaves much to be said.
Deciphering from what we know of the argument by what Aristotle tells us in Chapter 9, the premises are sketched out:
1. Everything is at rest when at a place equal to it;
2. The Flying arrow is at rest when at a place equal to it;
3. Time is composed of indivisible nows (instants).
4. Everything that changes place is doing so in the now.
5. Conclusion: The flying arrow doesn't move.
According to Zeno, time is composed of many indivisible nows, or instants.
Aristotle disagrees, stating in line 210 that no magnitude, including time, is composed of indivisible nows. Exactly how long is an instant? Is time finite?
As you start dividing time, the smaller you get, the less movement occurs. But even when you do divide it smaller and smaller, is there not at least some small amount of movement occurring? When will time get so small that movement does not occur? This is Aristotle's reasoning: that time will never get to a
"smallest" point, as length will never have a "smallest" division. Therefore, he is rejecting the third premise, stating that time is not composed of indivisible segments.
Zeno, however, feels that time can be divided into a "smallest" part.
After all, in physics, you can determine an object's instantaneous velocity or acceleration at a specific point in its journey, at a specific time. Wouldn't this make time indivisible?
Velocity and acceleration are given to mean motion, which means the object is moving at this specific point in time. Therefore, according to
Aristotle, this paradox would not be so if it were not taken that time were composed of nows.
By rejecting this premise, and reevaluating the argument, you will read
Responsibility and Vice is a topic that Aristotle argues in the Nicomachean Ethics . His argument is based off of the presumption that we are responsible, and open to praise or blame, for having a virtuous or vicious character. His claim for this argument is that we are ultimately in charge of our character, which is decided through our actions. Although Aristotle believes in this, however there are times in life where you are not in complete control of your actions.
ABSTRACT: Aristotle maintains that paideia enables one to judge the method used by a given speaker without judging the conclusions drawn as well (I.1 De Partibus Animalium). He contends that this "paideia of principles" requires three things: seeing that principles are not derived from one another; seeing that there is nothing before them within reason; and, seeing that they are the source of much knowledge. In order to grasp these principles, one must respectively learn to recognize what distinguishes the subject matters studied in different disciplines, see first principles as coming from experience and acquire the habit of seeking them in one’s experience and, finally, see first principles as being the source of conclusions. While the second and third points might at first seem to pertain to "nous" and science, respectively, rather than to paideia, the case can be made that paideia involves more of a firm grasp of principles than "nous" and a less perfect way of relating conclusion to principles than science.
The paradox arises due to a number of assumptions concerning knowledge, inquiry and definition made by both Socrates and Meno. The assumptions of Socrates are:
3. De Anima, Aristotle translated by William of Moerbeke and St Thomas Aquinas, Kenelm Foster, O.P., M.A., Silvester Humphries O.P., M.A New haven and London Yale University press 1965 (reprint)
In contrast, Aristotle understood the underlying forces and influences that transpired when a state degraded. Cicero quite frankly could not understand the forces which Aristotle so eloquently denoted. For Cicero, history offered the only possible paths of outcomes; the forces and behaviors played little part on the resulting state.2
To some the causes and effects of things are mutually exclusive, and coexistence with one another. When observing specific equipment or even life, the question stands that there must be an account that took place before such items ceased to exist. Particularly, Aristotle argues that each thing, whatever it may be, will have causes, or types of explanatory factors by which that thing can be explained. The significant knowledge of causes allows for specific accounts to be known. It’s like questioning what occurred first the chicken or the egg. Anything in life offers a question of cause; something must have been in order to bring about the nature of today. These causes are apparent in answering everyday questions, which in turn explains that the causes of life clarify the being of which stood before it and such causes amount to same entity.
The first reason that makes me believe that the views of Aristotle on metaphysics are accurate is the factual nature of the philosopher’s evidence. In essence, the thinker optimism regarding the nature of real forms existing on earth is practical. To illustrate this, no one should endeavor to prove the nature of human existence through abstract thinking such as “being preconceived” in an ideal world before humans appear on earth. Indeed, such thinking is at best, a fantasy, and proving such claims could be a daunting task, if not an impossible one. Conversely, I believe Aristotle is right in regard to the existence of forms, such as the human nature. To illustrate this, curious minds regarding the validity of a form of existence as whether
For millennia, human beings have pondered the existence of supreme beings. The origin of this all-too-human yearning for such divine entities stems in part from our desire to grasp the truth of the cosmos we inhabit. One part of this universe physically surrounds us and, at the end of our lives, consumes us entirely, and so we return from whence we came. Yet there is another, arguably more eternal, part of the cosmos that, in some ways, is separable from the transient, material world we so easily perceive but that, in other ways, is inextricably linked to it by unexplored, divinable forces. The argument of Aristotle’s Metaphysics is not that this worldview is provable or disprovable; the mere fact we are able to reason about abstract objects without having to perceive them is evidence enough of this order. Rather, Aristotle attempts to tackle some of the most fundamental questions of human experience, and at the crux of this inquiry is his argument for the existence of an unmoved mover. For Aristotle, all things are caused to move by other things, but the unreasonableness of this going on ad infinitum means that there must eventually be an ultimate mover who is himself unmoved. Not only does he put forth this argument successfully, but he also implies why it must hold true for anyone who believes in the ability to find truth by philosophy.
It has puzzled many philosophers throughout the ages. Socrates’s theory of recollection attempts to solve the paradox. The theory does answer the paradox in a way. However, theory itself has many problems including its circular nature and its purpose. The goal is to give Meno the instruction of how to enquire virtue when nobody knows what virtue is. The theory only says that Meno may be able to learn about virtue because his soul is immortal. He will be fine as long as he is engaging in the process of recollection. The paradox’s problem still remains
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.
The study of motion is so central to the book; motion defines nature, time and is what causes process of change. Motion is an important aspect of understanding the physics of the world because the world is constantly in motion. Because motion is mentioned in the definition of nature, any discussion of nature will rely upon the explanation of motion. So in Aristotle’s attempt to define and understand the physics of the world heavily relied on motion and is the reason it is mentioned in every book of the physics.
Courageous and admirable with noble qualities defines a heroine. In Aristotle’s Poetics he describes a tragic hero as a character who is larger than life and through fate and a flaw they destroy themselves. Additionally, Aristotle states excessive pride is the hubris of a tragic hero. The hero is very self-involved; they are blind to their surroundings and commit a tragic action. A tragedy describes a story that evokes sadness and awe, something larger than life. Furthermore, a tragedy of a play results in the destruction of a hero, evoking catharsis and feelings of pity and fear among the audience. Aristotle states, "It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation." (18) For a tragedy to arouse fear, the audience believes similar fate might happen to them and the sight of the suffering of others arouses pity. A tragedy's plot includes peripeteia, anagnorisis, hamartia and catharsis. Using Aristotle’s criteria, both characters in Oedipus The King and The Medea share similar qualities that define a tragic hero such as being of noble birth, having excessive pride, and making poor choices. They both gain recognition through their downfall and the audience feels pity and fear.
Aristotle saw logic as a tool that led to probing and eventually to explanations through argumentation rather than deductions alone [6]. In Aristotle’s view, deductions were not sufficient to lead to any type of validity, and most certainly not in the sciences, where arguments should “feature premises which are necessary” in order to avoid false suppositions [6]. He insisted that because science “extends to fields of inquiry like mathematics and metaphysics,” it is essential that not only facts had to be reported, but also explained through their “priority relations” [6].
Achilles and the tortoise is another paradox stated by Zeno. Zeno starts out by stating that Achilles is in a race with a...
To understand Aristotle’s overall theory of motion you must first understand his classification of matter. Aristotle believed that all matter consist of one of the five elements, earth, water, air, fire, and aether (Fowler). Each element had a place it belonged, with the most complex being aether which was heavenly bodies. Each of these elements had to be paired with an opposite which consist of, hot, cold, wet and dry. He then used these elements and opposites to describe all things on Earth and in our known universe. Each element had a natural resting place, for instance, water had a natural resting place between earth and air. This logic was then used to justify how and why lakes and streams exist, water runs downhill, but sits on top of earth. Another example of this is, since wood is composed mostly of air and so it floats on water.