Alright, time to briefly muse over Zeno’s paradoxes. I understand them, but at the same time, I can’t seem to fully grasp the concept. Almost as though the paradox is impossible to fully understand, because before you can fully understand it, you must understand half of it…wait, what? Yeah, exactly. But despite my lack of comprehension, I do enjoy applying this paradox to various aspects of my life. Chiefly, whatever goals I seek to accomplish in relation to my own self betterment. So often I focus so greatly of the end goal that it falls apart during my efforts to achieve it. If I, instead, viewed the end as impossible to reach, if I admitted that I must first reach the midway point before the end, and then the midway point between the middle and end, etc, I would be much closer to seeing many of my goals realized. Whether it’s running, exercise, playing bass, doing schoolwork…anything really. It’s when I adopt this perspective that I realize Zeno might have actually known what he was talking about, to a certain degree.
But then I must ask, what if, upon reaching the midpoint, I decide to make the middle my end? Take that you scurvy bastard!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't fully understand Zeno's paradoxes, either. For example, Zeno suggests that there is an infinite divisibility of space between two objects set in motion at different times. Illustrated in the story of the turtle and the hare, the hare who sets a race after the turtle will never be able to catch up to the turtle because everytime the hare does come near the turtle, the turtle will simply continue to progress.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Zeno seems to leave out the concept of time, and the related notion of speed. What if the hare is simply faster than the turtle, as is typically the case? If the turtle continues to move at the same pace, the hare may not only catch up, but he will ultimately progress past him. I may just not be interpreting Zeno correctly, and if that is the case, feel free to correct me. However, as it stands, there seems to be a simple, fatal flaw that is intuitively distinguishable.
I agree with Shayan on this. Despite any philosophical implications Zeno was trying to make, his paradox was wrong because it ignores physics. I wrote out a detailed explination why, but realized it was too long for a comment and instead made it a blog posting.
ReplyDelete