Advertisement

The Dialectical Structure of Zeno’s Arguments

  • Imre Toth
Chapter
Part of the Archives Internationales D’Histoire Des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas book series (ARCH, volume 136)

Abstract

Although no evidence of a logical fallacy was ever produced, philosophers and logicians of the nineteenth century shared the conviction that Zeno’s arguments against motion were simply eristic paralogisms. Hegel was an exception. He was already an exception by the simple fact of taking the arguments seriously: he argues — “Zeno’s dialectics of matter is, up to this day, unrefuted”. It is still unrefuted and irrefutable. But Hegel was singular too in considering the arguments — in accordance with a testimony of Aristotle on Zeno as the inventor of dialectic — as a relevant manifestation of dialectical reasoning: “Zeno’s specificity is the dialectics”. It should however be admitted that Hegel’s comments are rather conjectural, and they are certainly eclipsed by confusing obscurities, opening a rich source of misinterpretations, which few have been able to resist. In the present paper an attempt is made to provide a new interpretation of the arguments in the hope that this will contribute to making their hidden dialectical structure more transparent.

Keywords

Primitive Term Dialectical Structure Georg Cantor Colloquial Term Recursive Predicate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Aristotle, Anal. prior. 65b18; Hegel, Jub. 17, pp. 318, 328; Aristotle, Frg. 65; Plato, Parmenides 127A.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arist., Phys. 239b19-20.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simplicius, In Arist. physicorum p. 1013; Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs p. 45, I 1.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arist., Phys. 262a3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibid. 204a6-7, 206a22.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibid. 261a36.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Plato, Parmenides 165AD.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arist., Phys. 263a5–11; De lineis insec. 969a31-34; also ibid. 968a25-b4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Plato, Parm. 135E–136A; see also Aristotle, Top. 158al5-17.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spinoza, Epist. xii, 20 April 1663.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arist., de lin. insec. 971a10-12, 972al2.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The Elements,bk. xii props. 2, 5, 10-12, 18. In an impressive number of books and papers, published in the last twenty years, Prof. A. Szabó recurrently repeats the quite astonishing assertion, that axion 8 of “the greater and the part” is nowhere used in the Elements. Under these circumstances, the intention of Euclid, in listing axiom 8 at the beginning of the Elements, could have been nothing else — according to Szabó — than to provide a refutation of Zeno’s Arguments, since — as the Author believes — the axiom of “the whole and the part” is inconsistent with Zeno.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elem. ii 10.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Plato, Politikos 266AB.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elem. ii 9.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elem. ii 9 and 10; Proclus, In rem publ. ii 27.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De lin. insec. 968b19.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Euclid Elements,bk. x theor. 2.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Arist, Anal, prior. 65bl6–22.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    For instance in Polit. 287C, Laws. 820A.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plato, Rep. 534D. The evidence for the mathematical relevance of the passage was provided by Eva Sachs, op. cit.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ilias xxii 157; Arist., Poetica 1460al3-25, b26; Plato, Phaedrus 266B. The Tortoise is a contrivance of Simplicius (in Phys. 1014-1015). A felicitous cast of the parts: substituting the ludicrous reptile for Hector, the defeat of “the world-famous tragical hero of speed” (cf. Arist. Phys. 239b24-25) could since then be successfully produced on the stage according to the plot of a metaphysical chelonomachy.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arist., Phys. 239bl8–19.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arist., Phys. 204a7, b4; 206al5; 207b29.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Arist., Phys 239bl5–16.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plato, Parm 140E–142A; 151E-157B.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plato, Polit. 270B–271C.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Plato, Parm. 152B.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iliad xxii, 157–158; Joyce, Ulysses p. 794; Plato, Apology 39AB.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arist, Metaph. 1087b7–18.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Plato, Parm. 155D, 160CD.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ibid. 141A, 150C-151C.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ibid 165A.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arist., Metaph. 1081a25, 1083b31-32, 1087b5-18.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Plato, Farm. 157D.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibid. 151B, 147C.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibid. 155E–156A.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibid. Polit. 283C-284A; Arist., Metaph. 1087bl8.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Plato, Farm. 161CD, 153C.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ibid. 156B–157D, 159C.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ibid. 156D.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ibid. 157C, 158B.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ibid. 153C.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Plato, Philebus 14C–16C, 24A. 26D.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Georg Cantor, op. cit., p. 204.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Plato, Polit. 283C–284A.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Parmenides, Frg. 815-16; see Diels-Kranz, op. cit., vol. i, p. 236. Plato, Parm. 157A; 137B.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Plato, Rep. 546C, Meno 83C.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Proclus, In rem. publ. ii 27.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Plato, Theait. 196A.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Imm. Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, Introduction v 1 (Critik d. r. Vernunft, Riga 1787, p. 15).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Plato, Soph. 254A; Aristotle, Phys. 208b26-27.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Plato, Polit. 287C.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Plato, Parm. 140BD.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ibid. 156E–157A, 156DE.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    The current translation: “On irrational lines and solids”, or “atoms”, has no mathematical sense whatever. The meaning of the Greek term is unambiguous: compact, filled, without holes.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Georg Cantor, op. cit. pp. 148, 182-184, 195-199.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imre Toth

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations