Zeno eternally btfo

[Anonymous No.14914078]

>an object doesn't move unless it changes its direction
>therefore an arrow shot from a bow which apparently moves is actually at rest

This makes absolutely no fucking sense, it's retarded beyond comprehension.
Is this the wiseness of the pre-socratics? I lost two brain cells trying to figure out the autism behind this "paradox".

[Anonymous No.14914114]

>>14914078
Rene Guenon (pbuh) in his illuminating book on calculus rightfully points out that these paradoxes of Zeno were most likely formulated in response to other Greeks who believed in a real world of multiplicity comprised of atoms or other irreducible parts, to show how such a world is actually logically unfeasible, thereby indirectly lending support to Zeno's and Parmenides conception on a monistic world

[Anonymous No.14914137]

>>14914114
Is there anyone guenon (pbuh) hasn't retroactively refuted?

[Anonymous No.14914202]

>>14914137
his teacher

[Anonymous No.14914233]

>>14914078
Zeno was refuted by Hegel (pbuh), Marx (pbuh) and the science of dialectical materialism
>The objection is beside the point; in reality a pound of sugar is never equal to a pound of sugar—a more delicate scale always discloses a difference. Again one can object: but a pound of sugar is equal to itself. Neither is this true—all bodies change uninterruptedly in size, weight, colour, etc. They are never equal to themselves. A sophist will respond that a pound of sugar is equal to itself “at any given moment”.
>Aside from the extremely dubious practical value of this “axiom”, it does not withstand theoretical criticism either. How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence. Thus the axiom ‘A’ is equal to ‘A’ signifies that a thing is equal to itself if it does not change, that is, if it does not exist.
from Trotsky's "The ABC of Materialist Dialectics"

[Anonymous No.14914765]

>>14914233
Retards.

[Anonymous No.14914819]

>>14914078
Wrong Zeno retard
>>14914114
>indirectly
Do you know anything about Zeno lol

[Anonymous No.14914851]

>>14914233
Wow, Trotsky really didn't understand the basic logical concept of Identity. Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.14914878]

Zeno has likely btfod and outed more philosophers than anyone else. How was he so based?

[Anonymous No.14915395]

>>14914233
>practical value of this “axiom”

[Anonymous No.14915422]

>>14914078
You completely misunderstand the paradox. He is saying that if time is a series of moments, then at any one moment the arrow would be at rest. That's it.

[Anonymous No.14915454]

>>14915422
This. It's a reductio ad absurdum of atomistic accounts of time.

[Anonymous No.14915472]

>>14915422
Shush. OP is "special". He doesn't really understand all this philosophy stuff. He's just trying to be funny to make friends on the internet.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14915536]

>>14915422
This. And the "solution" is:
>>14914233
>How should we really conceive the word “moment”? If it is an infinitesimal interval of time, then a pound of sugar is subjected during the course of that “moment” to inevitable changes. Or is the “moment” a purely mathematical abstraction, that is, a zero of time? But everything exists in time; and existence itself is an uninterrupted process of transformation; time is consequently a fundamental element of existence.
Now there is still mistakes in this solution. Time, for instance, is not a fundamental element of existance. It is only fundamental for limited things who have some other to transform into. The world, that is, everything, has nothing to transform into, and therefore time is not fundamental to it.

[Anonymous No.14915879]

>>14914114
Aristotle retroactively refuted Guenon when he said that only magnitudes cannot discrete "moments". There is no contradiction of conceiving the world as indivisible parts in theory, yet this materialist conception of the world is still incorrect for other reasons.

[Anonymous No.14916006]

>>14915879
>Aristotle retroactively refuted Guenon when he said that only magnitudes cannot discrete "moments".
huh? what are you talking about can you cite the book where he says that? I'm not familiar with what you are talking about, he notes why atomism is logically untenable in his first book

>"If, as must be done in this instance, the word atom be taken in its true sense of “ indivisible,” a sense which modern physicists no longer give to it, it may be said that an atom, since it cannot have parts, must also be without area; now the sum of elements devoid of area can never form an area; if atoms fulfill their own definition, it is then impossible for them to make up bodies. To this well-known and more-over decisive chain of reasoning, another may also be added, employed by Shankaracharya in order to refute atomism 1 : two things can come into contact with one another either by a part of themselves or by the whole ; for atoms, devoid as they are of parts, the first hypothesis is inadmissible ; thus only the second hypothesis remains, which amounts to saying that the aggregation of two atoms can only be realized by their coincidence purely and simply, whence it clearly follows that two atoms when joined occupy no more space than a single atom and so forth indefinitely: so, as before, atoms, whatever their number, will never form a body. Thus atomism represents nothing but sheer impossibility, as we pointed out when explaining the sense in which heterodoxy is to be understood ; [...]”

― René Guénon (pbuh), Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines