Summary Of Zeno's Four Paradoxes Of Motion

For an argument to be valid it should have a logical conclusion for a sequential premises, and based on an assumption that the premises are true the conclusion must be true [1]. Moreover the soundness of the argument depend on its validity and that all the premises are true. When examining Meno’s paradox and its premises any one can conclude that the third premise is a logical conclusion for the first two premises, and assuming the truthfulness of the first two this lead to true third premise. Since if a person cannot relearn a thing which he attain foreknowledge about and he cannot learn anything that he don’t knew before, this logically lead us to the third premise which implies that inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.

Crito argues that Socrates should escape jail, and relies on the premises that he must consider the opinion of the public and that Socrates is betraying his children. Crito believes that Socrates is being foolish by remaining in jail and not escaping when given the opportunity. To support this argument, Crito presents two premises. The first of which claims that Socrates

Greek philosopher Plato’s account of the end of fellow philosopher Socrates’ life in The Trial and Death of Socrates includes a plethora of philosophical theories and ideas, but the one that stands out the most is none other than what is known as the Euthyphro Paradox. Found in the “Euthyphro” section of the book, Socrates brings up the idea of what is actually considered pious, or moral, by asking what exactly makes those things pious in the first place. More specifically, Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious being loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is being loved by the gods?” (Plato 11).

Meno 's paradox is a very prevalent paradox in the area of philosophy. It arises during a conversation between Socrates and Meno in the book Five Dialogues. Meno and Socrates are speaking about what virtue is when Meno raises an interesting point, “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know?” (p. 70). In simple terms, Meno is asking Socrates how he will

The displacement of an object cannot be greater than the distance an object travels because traveling from point A to point B equals displacement. The displacement can’t be greater but the distance can.

This is the beginning of the end of confusion of a paradox. All, except the somber shellfish-allergenic people, can appreciate the wittiest paradox found twenty thousand leagues under the sea: the magnificent jumbo shrimp. This peculiar crustacean is one of the many forms of puzzling contradictions. There is an endless amount of self-contradicting, seemingly impossible, yet truthful statements around the world, and it is our job to justify and rationalize these arguments. Paradox is important to the development of logical systems. Without paradox, any surprise of a counter- intuitive claim or proposition would seem over our heads and forever impossible, without a solution. It is left to the brilliant minds of philosophers, artists, writers, poets, engineers, mathematicians, and countless others to challenge our cerebrum. It is the majestically roaring, frozen conundrum of M.C. Escher’s “Waterfall” that contains an incongruity which, when followed, flows in the same path up the steps and down the balcony again and again. The puzzling result of this is not really a contradiction, but a valid deduction of acceptable premises.

In Plato’s Meno, I propose to trisect Socrates’ dialogue with the slave boy as follows. Socrates initially asks him by what means he could double the area of a square. At first glance, the slave boy is under the false belief that to double a square’s area one must correspondingly make the square’s sides ‘twice the size’ (82e). Secondly, the slave boy subsequently experiences ‘Aporia’ whereby he starts to doubt himself as uncertainty kicks in.

Before addressing the fundamental issues of the Theory of Recollection, it is worth noting that Socrates never addresses the second half of Meno’s Paradox- assuming one has found what it is they are looking for, how is one to know they have found it if they do not know what they are looking for? There seems to lack a method for verifying one’s answer and if you cannot confirm that what you have found is in fact what you were looking for then inquiry seems to be never-ending. Although this is a discussion for another time, it does highlight an issue, which Socrates faces in the first part of the paradox, the part he addresses, which is the problem of circularity. Ironically, Socrates’ Theory of Recollection, which is used to overcome

This essay will examine the philosophical questions raised in the movie The Matrix. It will step through how the questions from the movie directly relate to both skepticism and the mind-body problem, and further how similarly those problems look to concepts raised by both Descartes’ and Plato’s philosophies. It will attempt to show that many of the questions raised in the movie are metaphor for concepts from each philosopher’s works, and why those concepts are important in relation to how they are presented in the film. In this analysis, we will examine the questions of skepticism and the mind-body problem separately. Part one will examine how the film broached the subject of skepticism, and in doing so how it ties in to

In Meditations II Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy changed the landscape of Western Philosophy by stating: ‘cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am’. Now referred to as Descartes’ Cogito argument. The introduction of the cogito would go on to not only immortalize Descartes but also solidify his status as a pioneer of human thought. However, over time many modern day philosophers have begun to question the merit of Descartes’ Cogito argument. Much of the argument’s criticism draws from its uncanny similarities to Avicenna’s Floating Man thought experiment, which had been presented 600 years prior. Despite the apparent similarities between these arguments, a thorough analysis of each account will reveal unexpected distinctions.

St. Thomas' first proof is based on the argument of motion. By our natural senses, we know that the earth and the universe are always in motion. However for Aquinas, the term motion did not just mean physical motion but also change as in change from potential to actuality. He reasoned that all change is the result of a cause and as such nothing can move or change itself. He also noted that the sequence of motion cannot be traced back infinitely and so there must be a first mover who is unmovable and that being is God.

In Metaphysics XII, Aristotle elaborates on a need for a “first mover that initiates motion without being moved” (Met. 12.7, 1072a26). This primary, or unmoved mover, he believes is the source of all motion in the universe. In this essay, I will explain his conception of such a mover. I will then elaborate on how this unmoved mover initiates motion. Finally, I will explain his rationale for believing there is such a mover.

The concept of arrow paradox claims that when objects occupy an equal space at rest and locomotion is constant at the moment; then a flying arrow will be declared to be motionless. Zeno claims that at any instant an object is motionless because it cannot move to a place that it is not due to the fact that time has not elapsed. On the other hand, an object cannot move to where the object already is because that would create a paradox, seeing as the object is already there. It is impossible to observe any form of motion when the time is paused. Furthermore, if space is occupied by the objects then also the arrow should be dormant. Thus, the entire elaboration of this notion creates a fallacy. One can conclude form the arrow paradox that motion is impossible because everything is motionless at each instant, and time in essence is the sum of many instances.

I will now discuss Zeno’s paradox of motion. Zeno argues that motion does not exist through this argument: 1) there is an object at point A that is moving to a point B; 2) in order to reach point B, the object must pass the halfway point of points A and B; 3) we continue halving the remain distance and point B, all the way up to infinity; 4) this means that the object is taking an infinite distance to cross, and therefore, motion cannot exist, as an object cannot move an infinite

It is paradoxical to have a course, which revolves round the corrosiveness of faulted Western notions of time and its depiction through abstraction, identify itself with an abstract title but argue for the concreteness and tangibility of the portrayal of time and space. A Place Beyond Time does just that. Containing a vastly abstract title, A Place Beyond Time may at first glance appear to properly relate time as a tangent notion with space. Upon further contemplation, however, it becomes patent that A Place Beyond Time possesses a conspicuous absence present in its philosophy of aloofness from intangibility. And although the name of the course attempts to tackle and manifest the complications of abstract and concrete time, it is through its lack of definition and precision, lack of possession, and lack of sensation of repetition that A Place Beyond Time fails to properly capitalize on this dilemma.