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
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.
Aristotle, R. P. Hardie, and R. K. Gaye. Physics. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide Library, 2000. Print.
The. The "Aristotle". Home Page English 112 VCCS Litonline. Web. The Web.
...e ultimate cause of everything? While its minor problems are resolved quite easily, Aristotle’s argument for the unmoved mover is predicated on a premise of unknown stability: philosophy. At the heart of the issue is the very nature of philosophy itself and its ability to tackle questions of any magnitude. If everything is knowable, and philosophy is the path to knowledge, then everything must be knowable through philosophy, yet the ad infinitum paradox Aristotle faces is one that shows that the weakest part of his argument is the fact it relies on the abovementioned characteristics of philosophy. If any one of those is wrong, his proof crumbles and the timeless God in which he believes goes along with it, but if they are all right, then there is one God, immovable and actuality, for as Aristotle says, “The rule of many is not good; let there be one ruler” (1076a).
Aristotle's book The Physics, was in existence by about 350 B.C. This book is mainly concerned with change a...
Shields, Christopher. "Aristotle." Stanford University. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 25 Sept. 2008. Web. 3 May 2014. .
Here Aristotle is attempting to explain the way in which the world is created by god. He does not want his god to act in time because he does not want god actively changing things in the world because that active change would lead to potentiality. Aristotle’s god is not an activist, the God of the Bible is much more of an activist who gets involved with human lives in a direct fashion. He believes that the final end of the universe is to attempt to be like god.
In The Metaphysics, Aristotle states, “All men by nature desire to know.” Although, this is a generalization, of this insightful statement about the nature of humans and human understanding this statement truly captures what Aristotle was trying to figure out about humans and their thinking. Everyone has a desire to know or to understand. As rational beings we tend to contemplate very simple ideas to the most complicated, like our existence, or parts of the universe, or the universe as a whole. Aristotle is known as the father of modern day psychology and biology, even though many of his ideas of these two sciences was proven incorrect. The most important concepts of Aristotle’s theory of human understanding are the notion of cause, the infinite, and the soul.
To know a thing, says Aristotle, one must know the thing’s causes. For Aristotle the knowledge of causes provides an explanation. It is a way to understand something. Because of the importance of causality to knowledge and understanding, Aristotle developed something like the complete doctrine of causality, distinguishing efficient, material, formal, and final causes, and later concepts of causality have been derived from his analysis by omission. Aristotle’s four causes gives answers to the questions related to the thing to help ascertain knowledge of it, such as what the thing is made of, where the thing comes from, what the thing actually is, and what the thing’s purpose is. The thing’s purpose is used to determine the former three, in addition to the purpose being basically the same thing as what the thing actually is, as the purpose of the thing is used to determine whether or not a thing is what it is.
(239b 5-7) Zeno basically states that when the arrow is in a place it is at rest, at every moment it is flying through the air it is in a place its own size. Because of this at every moment in its flight it is at rest. Aristotle’s argument to this is that Zeno incorrectly assumes that time is made up of now’s. Aristotle’s solution is found at (239b 8-10). For Aristotle there is no motion in the now, so therefore the arrow is not at rest during its flight. Lines are not made up of points, time is not ...
Kirby, Jeremy. Aristotle's Metaphysics: Form, Matter, and Identity. London: Continuum, 2008. Web. 10 Dec 2013.
20.Aristotle's doctrine of the "four causes" -- material, formal, efficient and final -- may be found in
Achilles and the tortoise is another paradox stated by Zeno. Zeno starts out by stating that Achilles is in a race with a...
Probably one of the most controversial issues in philosophy is the search for Truth. The Truth in ethics and morality are particularly important, because it determines the way of life one would choose to live for individual; for society as a whole, it is the foundation of human civilization and it is the basis for laws and orders. I believe that the Doctrine of Golden Mean developed by Aristotle has provided a plausible guide to moral goodness, for him the golden mean is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency, this idea was first published in his book The Nicomachean Ethics. In my opinion, the middle path of moderation is achievable for any one; one can live his or her life through moderation and it can be accomplished by developing virtue as a habit.
Aristotle made contributions to logic, physics, biology, medicine, and agriculture. He redesigned most, if not all, areas of knowledge he studied. Later in life he became the “Father of logic” and was the first to develop a formalized way of reasoning. Aristotle was a greek philosopher who founded formal logic, pioneered zoology, founded his own school, and classified the various branches of philosophy.