Comparing Zeno's Arguments 'Achilles And The Arrow'

Zeno explains that motion is nonexistent in his arguments that defend his mentor Parmenides. The two arguments I will explain and critique in this essay are the Achilles and the Arrow. Zeno presents an idea that motion is nonexistent and I will provide examples and critiques about this idea. I will begin by explaining the Achilles argument that the faster runner will not be able to catch the slow runner even though he is faster. I will then critique this argument and reference it back to the first argument stated by Zeno. I will then explain the Arrow argument and critique the idea that motion is nonexistence. I think that although he gives great examples of his arguments, they are flawed and they were made for the purpose of helping Parmenides’ views of motion.
The Achilles argument states that “the slowest as it runs will never be caught by the quickest” (7). This is because the pursuer must first reach the point from which the pursued departed, so that the slower must always be some distance in front (7). An example that comes to mind is the tale for the Hare and the Tortoise from the Aesop’s
The first argument states that “there is no motion because that which is mobbing must reach the midpoint before the end…It is always necessary to traverse half the distance but these are infinite and it is impossible to get through things that are infinite” (6). This is dismissed the way that the first argument can be dismissed. The distance between the runners in continuous midpoints of the race is decreasing in size, which demonstrates a continuous space and duration of time between continuous points is decreasing which indicates a continuous divisibility of time. Zeno says that motion is an illusion, in the defense of his mentor whether or not it is a logical thought, Zeno makes us think about