Zeno sure did an interesting job in defending Parmenides’ viewpoints. For me, Zeno was making a glorified cosign to Parmenides especially in terms of the truth vs the world of illusions. Parmenides goes into great detail distinguishing what is known and what is “known”. Parmenides tried to explain what is “known” as the world of the senses and the erroneous opinions of mankind founded in them. This too is Zeno’s main purpose whether driven by Parmenides teachings or his affinity towards him.
One argument I battle with was the argument on finite size. Or is it infinite size? Ironically this argument made the most sense to me but in making sense actually didn’t make sense (the nature of paradox I know). Perhaps that is why I battled with it though. He argues to show that if many things exist then they must have no size at all. From this Zeno argues that it follows that they do not exist at all; since the result of joining (or removing) a size-less object to anything is no change at all, he concludes that the thing added (or removed) is literally nothing. Seemingly while this turns pluralism on its head for me it goes a step further. This argument denies the existence of parts and wholes, and things and everything in such a way that really none of it is or isn’t (also nihilist-esque). He wanted to disprove man’s confidence in what we would call our common sense. He did this by challenging our basic ideas of motion, but more importantly the ontological plurality that many before him blindly accepted.
One argument I battle with was the argument on finite size. Or is it infinite size? Ironically this argument made the most sense to me but in making sense actually didn’t make sense (the nature of paradox I know). Perhaps that is why I battled with it though. He argues to show that if many things exist then they must have no size at all. From this Zeno argues that it follows that they do not exist at all; since the result of joining (or removing) a size-less object to anything is no change at all, he concludes that the thing added (or removed) is literally nothing. Seemingly while this turns pluralism on its head for me it goes a step further. This argument denies the existence of parts and wholes, and things and everything in such a way that really none of it is or isn’t (also nihilist-esque). He wanted to disprove man’s confidence in what we would call our common sense. He did this by challenging our basic ideas of motion, but more importantly the ontological plurality that many before him blindly accepted.
Comments
Post a Comment