Phronesis 65 (4):467-500 (2020)

Jacob Rosen
Harvard University
On Zeno Beach there are infinitely many grains of sand, each half the size of the last. Supposing Aristotle denied the possibility of Zeno Beach, did he have a good argument for the denial? Three arguments, each of ancient origin, are examined: the beach would be infinitely large; the beach would be impossible to walk across; the beach would contain a part equal to the whole, whereas parts must be lesser. It is attempted to show that none of these arguments was Aristotle’s. Indeed, perhaps Aristotle’s finitism applied to magnitude only, not plurality.
Keywords Aristotle  Infinity
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/15685284-bja10031
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Paradoxien des Unendlichen.Bernard Bolzano - 2012 - Felix Meiner Verlag.
Time for Aristotle: Physics Iv.Ursula Coope - 2005 - Oxford University Press.

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
83 ( #116,822 of 2,386,399 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
41 ( #18,012 of 2,386,399 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes