Zeno: The Poster-Child for Couch Potatoes

I hate running. My lungs wheeze in protest, my muscles cramp up and my everything sweats. The only good part of running is when it’s over, and you can drink a couple-dozen gallons of water before hitting the showers and plopping back down on the couch. So, naturally, I look for any excuse in the book to avoid the abhorrent activity. Luckily for me, Zeno offers the perfect excuse: Motion doesn’t actually exist, so why bother?

Reading Zeno, the one aspect of his philosophy that repeatedly sticks out to me is the concept of infinity. In particular, he goes through quite the rig-a-marole to prove motion doesn’t exist using the concept of infinity. Consider Zeno’s  first three (out of four) arguments regarding motion. The first is the Dichotomy, the argument that “there is no motion” because a given distance between A and B can be infinitely divided in half (half the distance between A and B, and that half is divided in half, and so on) (Curd 68). The infinite number of divisions means that point B can never be reached from point A. Personally, if I were one of those unfortunate souls who ran the Bear Trail on a regular basis, just the thought of this argument would be enough to make me strongly reconsider my daily exercise regimen.

Infinity? That seems like an awful long time for morning cardio.

Infinity rears its ugly head yet again in the Achilles argument. As Zeno describes it, “the slowest as it runs will never be caught by the quickest [because] the pursuer must first reach the point from which the pursued departed” (Curd 68). In other words, as a result of Dichotomy, the pursuer will never reach the point at which the slow runner started because the distance must be infinitely divided, meaning that the slow runner will always be ahead of the fast runner. Admittedly, this argument doesn’t particularly help my cause; all I’d really have to do to win a race (assuming I’d ever start one) is start a few feet in front of all the faster runners in order to win, regardless of how agonizingly slow I decided to run. However, the chances of me reaching the finish line (pesky Dichotomy argument) are pretty much non-existent, so that doesn’t give me much incentive. 

The third argument (which, as it so happens, has no fancy name like the first two do) states that “if…everything is always at rest when it occupies a space equal to itself, and what is moving is always ‘at a now,’” then the moving object in question is motionless (Curd 69). This concept reminds me of watching an instant replay of a football game frame-by-frame. As the player moves in space, he is frozen motionless in each individual frame as the play moves forward. The motionlessness of each frame, though , applies to all movement (or lack-thereof?); as long as we occupy a space equal to ourselves and every moment in time is a “now,” then we are not actually moving. This certainly takes some of the glamour out of instant replays. It also makes me think that, no matter how much running I do (presumably for my own good), I won’t actually be moving. This seems to defeat the purpose of running, which is active motion to get me in shape. As such, really, why bother?

I honestly didn’t understand the last argument (I think it would’ve required a blackboard and lots of bad doodling), but I’m sure it in some way proves my point, too. If someone wants to help me prove my point further, feel free to leave a picture representation (because really, that’s what it would take) in the comments box below.