Can you argue the issue of Parnenides and Xeno theory on change and motion?

Question

They argued that change and motion are not possible. Do you feel this is correct? why or why not?

Answer 1

I do not agree. I side more with Heraclitus, things are in constant flux. By Xeno you might be referring to either Xenophanes, a forerunner of the eleatics or Xenocrates, successor of Plato. Both taught unified theory, Xenophanes in his panentheism held that one God, unmoving, changeless, all-perceiving, homogeneous and all ruling was the source of all, the unity of the universe, Xenocrates with his numbers theory taught that the source of all was in the One and the dyad, an idea in some ways comparable to digital theory, Motion is not illusory, and even the structure of matter changes over time and can be transformed to energy. The greatest disservice was done to Western theology in the introduction of Aristotle's unmoved mover as dogmatic truth. It removes God from the act of caring and interaction. We see evidences of the expansion of the universe on the grand scale, and in the infinitesimal realm of quantum mechanics we see charges and particles in motion.

Answer 2

It seems intuitively obvious that things are changing. This is the conclusion that just about everyone draws based on the evidence of their senses, memory, and other faculties. Thus it would seem that if Parmenides and Xeno want to demonstrate that all these observations are wrong, they would have a huge burden of evidence to overcome. I personally don't think that either comes even close to this.

Parmenides seems to prefer word games to dealing with reality in any sense. He argues that nothing is what does not exist, so therefore nothing never exists - that there is no instance in which there is nothing. And since there can never be nothing, nothing can ever start or stop existing but must always exist in just the same way, nor can anything move around because there is simply no place to move it to, nor can it ever stop vacating a spot.

Which, again, is a nice game to play with words, but it in no way jibes with reality. Why do I SEEM to see things move around if this is not possible? Parmenides' only answer would seem to be that I'm not. If one took this philosophy seriously, it would be little more than a disguised form of nihilism. Why should I learn anything? I either already know everything or I never will. Change is impossible.

Xeno does no better, though he's hung up on different imaginary concepts. In his case it's math. He assumes that because you can describe things with numbers that these numbers reveal the underlying reality instead of just describing it. Since, he argues, you can break anything down into an infinite number of infinitesimal parts, you can't do anything. Because it's obvious you can't perform an infinite number of tasks.

But that is NOT obvious. There aren't any observe infinite anythings in the universe. Some scientists argue even that time and space itself is quantized on the smallest of levels. And I can assemble any number of mathematicians who can prove that many infinite sequences add up to completely finite amounts, which ARE achievable. Xeno's supposed paradoxes are just more games, only they're math games instead of word games.

If those guys want to support their position and deny all the evidence of our senses, they're going to have to work a lot harder on it. Fortunately for them, if they're right they're not dead nor will they ever be. So they have plenty of time. Heh.