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)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
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.
Phil Hopkins (2006). Zeno's Boêtheia Tôi Logôi. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 11 (1):1-25.
Nicholas Huggett (forthcoming). Zeno's Paradoxes. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.).
Wesley C. Salmon (ed.) (1970). Zeno's Paradoxes. Bobbs-Merrill.
Alba Papa-Grimaldi (1996). Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno's Paradoxes Miss the Point: Zeno's One and Many Relation and Parmenides' Prohibition. Review of Metaphysics 50 (2):299 - 314.
David M. Sherry (1988). Zeno's Metrical Paradox Revisited. Philosophy of Science 55 (1):58-73.
Max Black (1950). Achilles and the Tortoise. In Wesley C. Salmon (ed.), Analysis. Bobbs-Merrill 67-81.
Added to index2009-02-04
Total downloads10 ( #215,417 of 1,699,835 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #206,271 of 1,699,835 )
How can I increase my downloads?