The Arrow Paradox

Zeno put much thought into motion, and came up with four different reasons as to why motion does not exist. There is the “Dichotomy” paradox, the “Achilles” paradox, the “Arrow” paradox, and the “Stadium” paradox. In all of these paradox’s Zeno made something that is obviously true, motion, and made an argument to prove motion to be false. The “Arrow” paradox will be the paradox explained throughout this paper. This paper will also pull a lesson away from this paradox, and determine if this argument is correct or not. To start off, Zeno put a plethora of thought into each of these arguments, and one that really stands out is the “Arrow” paradox. In Zeno’s argument, assume that motion exists. If motion exists, then the arrow in flight …show more content…
So, in order for the arrow to get from the archer to the target, motion has to take place. Motion must take place simply because the arrow has to be moved from one spot to another. The way Zeno explains his first reason as to why motion does not exist is false. His first argument is, “If motion exists, then the arrow in flight is also at rest in each moment”. This is false because the arrow is not at rest. What Zeno does is he thinks of it as taking a picture, or time being slowed down tremendously. With a picture, the arrow would be taking up one spot, and one spot only. Also, if time were thought to be slowed down so much, then the arrow would appear to be at rest. However, Zeno did not have the technology to do that, so with the theory of time being slowed down so far that the arrow would appear to be motionless at the human eye, if one had a magnifying glass to zoom in on the arrow’s head, the arrow would appear to be moving. There would be no way to make the arrow appear to not be moving, unless it is with a photo, and even then, the arrow would be blurry because it is in fact moving. Now that his argument, “the arrow in flight is also at rest in each moment”, can be proven false with the previous statements, Zeno’s next statement in his argument can now be proven false as well. Zeno’s next statement plays off the one just stated and states, “But that’s impossible, since being at rest and being in motion are contrary states”. Because Zeno’s first statement was proven to be false, this second statement does not have any effect on being there. The second statement has no effect because motion has already proven to be true, so the arrow is not at rest, it is in motion. So, the final statement in the revised argument would be, “So, motion