Zeno takes up an unusual stance while defending the arguments of Parmenides. Instead of bolstering Parmenides own claims about everything being one, he instead attacks the counter arguments of this theories detractors. He tries to prove this via several paradoxes designed to show that the "many" is impossible.
Honestly, Zeno is a hard read because his arguments are difficult to wrap your head around. In the course of reading his four arguments, I felt increasingly confused. But, maybe that was his plan all along. Just confuse the other side so much they no longer know whats going on.
I think Z and P resemble some later philosophers for whom something like this confusion may have factored in to their motivation. I'm thinking of the Ancient Skeptics, whose arguments (which resemble some of Zeno's, like the millet seed argument) are designed to demonstrate to opponents the BANKRUPTCY of reason--that they can't actually know anything they think they know. However, I think P and Z were up to something else, i.e., I think they're negative arguments were aimed at demonstrating something positive about reality (and not just the bankruptcy of reason).
ReplyDelete