RUcore: Rutgers University Community Repository
Zeno, Aristotle, the Racetrack and the Achilles: a historical and philosophical investigation
Descriptive
TitleInfo
(displayLabel = Citation Title);
(type = uniform)
Title
Zeno, Aristotle, the Racetrack and the Achilles: a historical and philosophical investigation
Name
(ID = NAME001);
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Allen
NamePart
(type = given)
Benjamin William
DisplayForm
Benjamin William Allen
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RUETD)
author
Name
(ID = NAME002);
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Bolton
NamePart
(type = given)
Robert
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
DisplayForm
Robert Bolton
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
chair
Name
(ID = NAME003);
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Klein
NamePart
(type = given)
Peter
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
DisplayForm
Peter Klein
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
internal member
Name
(ID = NAME004);
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Zimmerman
NamePart
(type = given)
Dean
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
DisplayForm
Dean Zimmerman
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
internal member
Name
(ID = NAME005);
(type = personal)
NamePart
(type = family)
Pellegrin
NamePart
(type = given)
Pierre
Affiliation
Advisory Committee
DisplayForm
Pierre Pellegrin
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
outside member
Name
(ID = NAME006);
(type = corporate)
NamePart
Rutgers University
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
degree grantor
Name
(ID = NAME007);
(type = corporate)
NamePart
Graduate School - New Brunswick
Role
RoleTerm
(authority = RULIB)
school
TypeOfResource
Text
Genre
(authority = marcgt)
theses
OriginInfo
DateCreated
(qualifier = exact)
2008
DateOther
(qualifier = exact);
(type = degree)
2008-10
Language
LanguageTerm
English
PhysicalDescription
Form
(authority = marcform)
electronic
InternetMediaType
application/pdf
InternetMediaType
text/xml
Extent
vii, 334 pages
Abstract
I reconstruct the original versions of Zeno's Racetrack and Achilles paradoxes, along with Aristotle's responses thereto. Along the way I consider some of the consequences for modern analyses of the paradoxes.
It turns out that the Racetrack and the Achilles were oral two-party question-and-answer dialectical paradoxes. One consequence is that the arguments needed to be comprehensible to the average person, and did not employ theses or concepts familiar only to philosophical specialists. I rely on this fact in reconstructing the original dialectical versions of the paradoxes. I show that both paradoxes rely for their success on forcing the dialectical answerer to reflect on his own potentially unending experience of imagination, and show that this renders the most popular contemporary critique of each paradox unworkable in an ancient dialectical context.
In responding to the Racetrack, Aristotle seeks to replace the answerer's first-person experience with something more objective, a visible diagram. He then argues that the Racetrack involves an equivocation, an equivocation resulting from the fact that one and the same visible diagram can be interpreted in two ways. He frames his charge of equivocation in standard dialectical fashion, but his use of a diagram is his own innovation.
While first employing his response to the Racetrack to construct a response to the somewhat different Achilles paradox, Aristotle later proceeds to offer a revised critique of the Racetrack itself. His revised critique is heavily influenced by his reaction to a variant pre-Aristotelian version of the paradox, a version involving counting. This leads him to reflect on the possibility of mentally experiencing an infinite collection. He also reflects on his earlier diagrammatic methodology, and on the conditions that individuate points, especially halfway-points. He concludes that points which are individuated in diagrams need not represent points that are individuated in reality. His revised critique of the Racetrack hinges on the distinction between actual points and potential points, and I show that this critique maintains the dialectical form of its predecessor, while constituting a reflection on the potentially misleading nature of diagrams.
It turns out that the Racetrack and the Achilles were oral two-party question-and-answer dialectical paradoxes. One consequence is that the arguments needed to be comprehensible to the average person, and did not employ theses or concepts familiar only to philosophical specialists. I rely on this fact in reconstructing the original dialectical versions of the paradoxes. I show that both paradoxes rely for their success on forcing the dialectical answerer to reflect on his own potentially unending experience of imagination, and show that this renders the most popular contemporary critique of each paradox unworkable in an ancient dialectical context.
In responding to the Racetrack, Aristotle seeks to replace the answerer's first-person experience with something more objective, a visible diagram. He then argues that the Racetrack involves an equivocation, an equivocation resulting from the fact that one and the same visible diagram can be interpreted in two ways. He frames his charge of equivocation in standard dialectical fashion, but his use of a diagram is his own innovation.
While first employing his response to the Racetrack to construct a response to the somewhat different Achilles paradox, Aristotle later proceeds to offer a revised critique of the Racetrack itself. His revised critique is heavily influenced by his reaction to a variant pre-Aristotelian version of the paradox, a version involving counting. This leads him to reflect on the possibility of mentally experiencing an infinite collection. He also reflects on his earlier diagrammatic methodology, and on the conditions that individuate points, especially halfway-points. He concludes that points which are individuated in diagrams need not represent points that are individuated in reality. His revised critique of the Racetrack hinges on the distinction between actual points and potential points, and I show that this critique maintains the dialectical form of its predecessor, while constituting a reflection on the potentially misleading nature of diagrams.
Note
(type = degree)
Ph.D.
Note
(type = bibliography)
Includes bibliographical references (p. 327-333).
Subject
(ID = SUBJ1);
(authority = RUETD)
Topic
Philosophy
Subject
(ID = SUBJ2);
(authority = ETD-LCSH)
Topic
Dialectic
Subject
(ID = SUBJ3);
(authority = ETD-LCSH)
Topic
Paradox
Subject
(ID = SUBJ4);
(authority = ETD-Name)
Name
NamePart
Zeno, of Elea
Subject
(ID = SUBJ5);
(authority = ETD-Name)
Name
NamePart
Aristotle
RelatedItem
(type = host)
TitleInfo
Title
Graduate School - New Brunswick Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Identifier
(type = local)
rucore19991600001
Identifier
(type = hdl)
http://hdl.rutgers.edu/1782.2/rucore10001600001.ETD.17425
Identifier
ETD_1175
Location
PhysicalLocation
(authority = marcorg);
(displayLabel = Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)
NjNbRU
Identifier
(type = doi)
doi:10.7282/T3NC61K3
Genre
(authority = ExL-Esploro)
ETD doctoral
Back to the top
Rights
RightsDeclaration
(AUTHORITY = GS);
(ID = rulibRdec0006)
The author owns the copyright to this work.
Copyright
Status
Copyright protected
Availability
Status
Open
AssociatedEntity
(AUTHORITY = rulib);
(ID = 1)
Name
Benjamin Allen
Role
Copyright holder
Affiliation
Rutgers University. Graduate School - New Brunswick
RightsEvent
(AUTHORITY = rulib);
(ID = 1)
Type
Permission or license
Detail
Non-exclusive ETD license
AssociatedObject
(AUTHORITY = rulib);
(ID = 1)
Type
License
Name
Author Agreement License
Detail
I hereby grant to the Rutgers University Libraries and to my school the non-exclusive right to archive, reproduce and distribute my thesis or dissertation, in whole or in part, and/or my abstract, in whole or in part, in and from an electronic format, subject to the release date subsequently stipulated in this submittal form and approved by my school. I represent and stipulate that the thesis or dissertation and its abstract are my original work, that they do not infringe or violate any rights of others, and that I make these grants as the sole owner of the rights to my thesis or dissertation and its abstract. I represent that I have obtained written permissions, when necessary, from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis or dissertation and will supply copies of such upon request by my school. I acknowledge that RU ETD and my school will not distribute my thesis or dissertation or its abstract if, in their reasonable judgment, they believe all such rights have not been secured. I acknowledge that I retain ownership rights to the copyright of my work. I also retain the right to use all or part of this thesis or dissertation in future works, such as articles or books.
Back to the top
Technical
Format
(TYPE = mime);
(VERSION = )
application/x-tar
FileSize
(UNIT = bytes)
1468416
Checksum
(METHOD = SHA1)
929bc899c1ac3a6efcca0a422d381b99a173f944
ContentModel
ETD
CompressionScheme
other
OperatingSystem
(VERSION = 5.1)
windows xp
Format
(TYPE = mime);
(VERSION = NULL)
application/x-tar
Back to the top
Statistical Profile