David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 8 (1-4):292 – 300 (1965)
It is generally agreed that the argument about Achilles and the tortoise was intended to prove that the concept of movement was contradictory or ambiguous and therefore that it did not belong in the foundations of ontology. It is suggested here that the argument stands unless we are prepared to define a standard time by means of dynamical concepts. It would be a premature assumption, however, to suppose that Zeno himself should have been so prepared
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Adolf Grünbaum (1967). Zeno's Metrical Paradox of Extension. In Wesley C. Salmon (ed.), Zeno’s Paradoxes. Bobbs-Merrill. 176--199.
Max Black (1950). Achilles and the Tortoise. In Wesley C. Salmon (ed.), Zeno’s Paradoxes. Bobbs-Merrill. 67-81.
David M. Sherry (1988). Zeno's Metrical Paradox Revisited. Philosophy of Science 55 (1):58-73.
Alba Papa-Grimaldi (1996). Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno's Paradoxes Miss the Point: Zeno's One and Many Relation and Parmenides' Prohibition. The Review of Metaphysics 50 (2):299 - 314.
Wesley C. Salmon (ed.) (1970). Zeno's Paradoxes. Bobbs-Merrill.
Nicholas Huggett (forthcoming). Zeno's Paradoxes. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.).
Phil Hopkins (2006). Zeno's Boêtheia Tôi Logôi. Epoché 11 (1):1-25.
Added to index2009-02-04
Total downloads4 ( #195,570 of 1,008,320 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?