Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.
http://www.jstor.org
TheNatureof Zeno'sArgument
AgainstPluralityinDK 29 B I
WILLIAM
E. ABRAHAM
Simplicius has preserved (Phys. 140, 34) a Zenonian argument purporting to show that if an object of positive magnitude has parts from
which it derives its size, then any such object must be at once of
infinite magnitude and zero magnitude. This surprising consequence
is based upon a construction which Zeno makes, but his argument is
widely thought to be grossly fallacious. Most often he is supposed to
have misunderstoodthe arithmetic of his own construction. Evidently,
any such charge must be premised on some view of the particular
nature of the sequence to which Zeno's construction gives rise. I seek
to develop a view that Zeno's argument is in fact free from fallacy,
and offer reason to fear that his real argumenthas usually been missed.
For ease of reference, I reproduce a translation of Simplicius in
DK 29 B 1.
(He showed the infinity of) size earlier by means of the same reasoning, for
having first established that if a being did not have a size, it would not even
be, he proceeds: if then it is, each must have some definite size and bulk,
and have one (part) of it extend from another. Concerning a' projecting
part, the same principle holds, for that too will have size, and part of it2
will project. Indeed, to say this once is equal in force to saying it forever;
for no such part of it will be the last, and there will not be a part not
extending from another. Thus, if it consists of many parts, it must be both
small and huge - so small as not to have size, so huge as to be infinite.
In order to impute the usual fallacy to Zeno, it is held that his construction is of a series of continuously decreasing quantities. The
charge then is that Zeno mistakenly thought that the sum of such a
series approaches infinity.
It is irrelevant to this charge whether the terms decrease geometrically or not. Vlastos3 has however offered persuasive considerations,
1
Tt to be a partitive
genitive, rightly. See Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
48 (1913), p. 724.
3 G. Vlastos in "Note on B 1" (p. 3), one of several papers offered to the Institute
in Greek Philosophy and Science meeting at Colorado Springs, Summer 1970.
40
1, 2,3,...
could blind him to the fact that all the quantities in his own sequence
are supposed to be parts of the one given finitely large object, and so
could not in sum exceed their matrix. And yet it hardly seems that
Zeno had any such amnesia concerning the source of the parts; on the
contrary, he makes it a corner-stone of his argument that the sum of
all the derived parts would not differ from the original finite existent.
This indeed is why he makes the original existent assume an infinite
size if the sum of its parts is an infinite magnitude, and zero size if
the sum of the parts is of zero magnitude. What is lacking is the proof
that the parts would add up to an infinite magnitude and to zero
magnitude. As to the equivalence of the parts with the whole, Zeno's
B 3 paradox may even seem to formulate precisely this.6
The standard exposition varies as to the ratio in which the given
finite existent is continuously divided. While most accounts suggest a
bipartite division, some (e.g. Frankel's) have proposed a tripartite
division. All of them, however, make certain suppositions which give
rise to the imputed fallacy. For the purpose of the following discussion,
it is simpler to refer to the bipartite division.
4 Diels/Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsohratiker (Dublin/Zurich 1966) I 255,
footnote to line 16.
b Hermann Frankel, "Zeno of Elea's Attacks on Plurality" in American Journal
of Philology, 63 (1942), 1-25, 193-206.
6 DK I 257 f: "If it consists of many parts, they (the parts) must be just as
many as they are, neither more nor fewer, and if they are just as many as
they are, they must be limited".
41
.eLrL
elvoaL3C
-'V E'
&7rtpoV
7 DK I 257 2,3.
42
terms are successive undivided left-hand (or right-hand) parts. Accordingly, in the remark
"7ZpOTO
Xa4 vo[ivou
a LEttvacL
8atr FfvV
with the article may be suppressed; and just as 'o r3oux6,svoq would
mean "anyone who wishes," so sLo7rpoC'Xov
could mean "any projecting
7V?Ntay' 't'o
auvexq
&'Ct 8Laxpv.ov
?a'tv
Ciai 'To
7tXeCoVX.
DK I 255 20,21.
43
xvCyxaouV
ro ppot&YSpov.
44
large. As they must at the same time be equal in sum to the given being,
that being would now be infinite in size. On the other hand, these
parts cannot possibly have positive size, or else the division is not
through and through. Hence since the given being is thoroughly
divided, these parts, while remaining mutually equal, must now have
zero size each. In sum, they will still have zero size. Since in sum they
must be equal to the given being whose parts they are, it follows now
that that being would have zero size.
Even though Zeno's argument does not commit the fallacy of
making a decreasing geometrical progression infinite in sum, there
still are features of it which may not have commanded acquiescence
in his day, and certainly merit discussion in ours. The following
propositions are important to his argument:
i) a being with positive magnitude is divided through and through;
ii) a through and through division as in (1) is an infinite division;
iii) the products of any division of a being with positive magnitude are parts of
that being;
iv) the products of a through and through division of a being with positive
magnitude cannot have positive magnitude;
v) the parts of a being are together equivalent to that being (formulated by
Zeno himself in B 3).
46
47
48
being does not imply a last division or last part, any more than the
simultaneity of the points on a line imply an infinitieth point. That
there are end-products implies neither that there is a last division not
that there is a last product. That division which involves the endproduct is distinguished from all the other possible divisions in that it
is the only division of which it is true that every one of its products is
related to the given being (now regarded as an aggregate) not by
inclusion but by membership.
It should be evident now that any part with positive magnitude
would be includedin the aggregate. To say that such a part could be
theoretically indivisible would mean at most that it is non-fissile in
relation to physical theory, not that it has no segments. It is not
necessary to Zeno's argument against plurality that the parts of a
being should be fissile parts. The verb 47eXeLv does not require this; it
calls only for segments. Solomon Luria14 accurately perceived the
49
50
divisions which give rise to them. It would seem that they would have
to be actually infinitely many.16
MacalesterCollege,St. Paul, Minnesota
"6 The Greek texts have been verified by Jeremiah Reedy, of the Department
52