Can someone PLEASE help me understand this philosophy question?

Question

In Zeno's 4 paradoxes, the paradox of "the arrow" where it basically says motion, is therefore, an illusion. Why is this? I don't get it. The book says: "Does an arrow move when the archer shoots it at a target? Here again the Pythagoreans, who had argued for the reality of space and therefore of it's divisibility, would have to say that teh moving arrow must at every moment occupy a particular position in space. But if an arrow occupies a position in space equal to it's length, this is precisely what is meant when we say that the arrow is at rest. Since the arrow must always occupy such a position in space equal to it's length, the arrow must always be at rest. Moreover, any quantity, as we saw in the example of the racecourse, is infinitely divisible. Hence the space occupied by the arrow is infinite and as such it must coincide with everything else, in which case everything must be One instead of many. Motion, therefore, is an illusion." ....WHAAAT?

Dude, I'm not asking you to do my homework, because first of all, it's not homework (apart from having to read it) but if I'm going to READ it, I'd like to at LEAST be able to UNDERSTAND what I'm reading. All I'm asking is if someone can break this down into layman's terms for me.

And probably the only reason you're saying "do your own homework" is because you probably don't understand the question yourself and don't know the answer. People who don't know ALWAYS are the first to say "I'm not helping you".

hq3...THANK YOU! NOW I get it! NOW it makes sense! also, thanks for the visual. Sometimes you DO have to "draw someone a picture" or at least *I* do sometimes. I'm a visual learner. I just had to get a "mental picture example", but now it's crystal clear. Thanks again!

Answer 1

Try this: Imagine an instant of time. During that instant, does the arrow move? (Which is to say: Does it occupy a span of space longer than the arrow’s length?) If your answer is yes, then this means that you should be able to choose an even smaller instant in time – say, a span of time in which the arrow moves only half as far as it did in your original concept of the instant. This, obviously, can go on forever, so your next move is to say: Ok, now I’m thinking of an instant of time so small that the arrow travels zero inches during that instant of time. (Thus during this instant, the arrow occupies a span of space exactly equal to its length.) But if you take this approach, then what are you saying? You are saying that during this moment in time, the arrow covers no distance. It occupies a span of space exactly equal to its length. It does not move. To say that something does not move is the same as saying that it is at rest. Presumably time is composed of a series of instants, and if at each instant the arrow is at rest, then the arrow is simply at rest. The arrow seems to be moving, but in reality it never actually moves because during each instant of its existence it is at rest. Thus motion is an illusion. To paraphrase a famous quote: It is not the arrow that moves, but the mind that moves.

Answer 2

Think about this way.
say this thing is an arrow"-->"
Also assume that a second is the smallest possible amount of time. We can assume this only to illustrate the paradox. Pythagoreans also though that there is some period of time that is "the smallest"
Now assume that arrow moves for 5 seconds
Here is how it looks:
1. .-->
2. .. -->
3. ..... -->
4. ........-->
5. .......... -->

As you can see at each second the arrow occupies some space. So the paradox is that the arrow did not have any "time" to move. I.e you cannot tell at what second the arrow was moving, as at each second the arrow is at rest! Thus the paradox and seeming conclusion that motion is illusion.

Answer 3

Rather than try to break what you wrote down specifically, I'll use another example in hopes that it's on the right track.

Just like motion, time is also an illlusion. We think we're moving forward in time, but in reality, we experience one single moment after another. There's no true progress anywhere. We're forever stuck in the same place, and time is the method we concocted to try and make sense of it.....to keep track of it.

Of course (back to the arrow), just because an arrow occupies a position in space when it's at rest doesn't mean that it's always at rest just because of that fact. Philosophers always try to nail things down into nice little black and white categories, and the world doesn't work that way. The arrow can be in motion and occupy the same space as it does when it's at rest.

And if you want to truly get technical, since everything is made of vibrating energy, it could be said that nothing is ever truly at rest, no matter how much space it occupies.

I'm not sure if that helps at all, but it was fun to ponder :)

Answer 4

Nothing is really at rest. And the space occupied by the arrow at a moment in time is definite (not infinite). It is a question of explaining the philosophical categories of space and time. Try this, no two things can occupy the same space at the same time. space is the location of a certain matter at a given time. Motion therefore is not an illusion. Everything is in constant motion. How you view motion however is relative. In our perspective, a building is at rest, however if we consider that it revolves with the eath it is inb motion. But if you look at that same building from the moon, it will be in motion.

Answer 5

Motion is relative to the observer's perspective.

Is the first state/position an illusion?

then the second must also be..an illusion..and the next..and the next


Motion is the transfer from one space to another. Space itself has no motion but it provides numerous points that objects can occupy.

Answer 6

I would say that the arrow just arrives at the target and through the target. If you stand behind the archer the arrow appears to move to have stood still and the target jump torward you where as if you where the target the arrow would all of a suden stop in you as if it just didn't move.

Answer 7

The "WHaaat?" in your question is because these are paradoxes.

The one I'm most familiar with is the one that goes: to get from here to there, a thing first has to go half that distance, but to that it first has to go half THAT distance, and so on.

Since the distance from here to there is infinitely divisible (you can keep cutting the half-distances in half -- there are an infinity of such halves), the thing can't actually get to There.

Perhaps the wikipedia entry in Source will help you.

Answer 8

This is a trick explanation. The trick is the part about the length of the arrow. You measure velocity from one point of an object such as its tip. So it moves fine. This is called sophistry--using language to fool people.

Answer 9

This is an example of highly abstract thinking. If you can picture each thing described, in your own mind, you can follow the reasoning to its conclusion.

Answer 10

i dont know but it sounds like faulty logic to me.

also, i dont think it's an illusion that when i drive my car to work and start at home and end up at work, that that is an illusion ( or like when my car was totalled because someone hit me)