1. Some background information to start out, the reading immediately tells us, "Zeno was the perfect nemesis to Bergson because as a member of the Eleatic School of pre-Socratic philosophers, he was fully invested in the denial of movement, change, and plurality." This is going to be key in my analysis due to the fact my analysis is about their ideas clashing with one another.
2. Zeno's example of the arrow where he states that an arrow can never reach its target because distance or space it must travel can always be divided an infinite number of times. This is a obviously a paradox that undermines Bergson's theory of motion. The theory Zeno presents is definitely false due to the fact, anything with the right amount of time and right equipment can almost get from any one point to another. At first I was confused by Zeno's thought process later to realize his theory is understandable if there were not already convincing evidence at this point that he is absolutely wrong. You can take his arrow idea and go greater into depth with his comparison between Achilles and the tortoise. The tortoise was given a ten unit head start with Achilles being able to run ten times faster than the tortoise. By Zeno argues in his third paradox, Achilles would never pass the tortoise because every time Achilles attains the point where the tortoise was, the tortoise has progressed a tenth of the distance Achilles has therefore the tortoise will always be ahead. Now we all know how this story ends based on childhood novelty but you would assume that Achilles would swoop right by and win the race basically immediately after they started with how fast he ran and the tortoise left in the dust. Zeno suggests that because of the ten unit lead in the beginning that the tortoise would always be ahead due to the infinite amount of time it would take for Achilles to get to from the starting line past Achilles. I completely disagree with this because the Achilles is 10times faster and should annihilate him unless of course he gets injured.
2. Bergson argues for the indivisibility of movement as a continuous whole. "Bergson admits to the fact that in order to produce the illusion of movement there must be real movement somewhere. He locates it in the apparatus, the projector, which moves the film forward." Although Zeno's paradox is false because we know something can go from one point to the next, Bergson admits that to show movement it must be an illusion when he later states, "the movement slips through the interval." Meaning to have one thing look as if it were moving, you have to have something that is still, to create the illusion. Only through this Bergson claims can be the result to avoid complete stillness in a picture. I think that he is right because if you take a picture of lets say a human, and wanted to make it look as if he were moving at a fast rate you would need to make the background move fast, creating the illusion of a moving human.
3. Finally, I do not believe Zeno can relatively disprove the possibility of movement, and certainly cannot convince me that there is no passage of time because over the years I have learned that time is of the essence. Everything evolves around time in real time and illusion time. With time anything can be done. If you could stop time or make it not exist, everything would be put on hold and nothing would be accomplished. When it comes to film I agree with certain techniques you can make time stop yet at the same time keep it going in the sense of illusion but I believe in the film industry you can only get by with slowing down time not the complete annihilation of movement in respect to time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In response to paragraph 2, I find Zeno to be quite arrogant and unrealistic in his disapproval of the “movement, change, plurality” and “the commonsense belief in [our] reality.” The crutch of his beliefs relies on an infinite universe that cannot be broken down. He provides three paradoxes to try to prove his point, yet all three are grounded in the same argument, that a line is indefinite and comprised of an infinite amount of points. Since our reality is infinite, we cannot rationalize and break it down into smaller units. I agree with Spencer that Zeno’s paradoxes prove of quite faulty. A traveling arrow “at any moment is at rest” (173). If it is at rest, how can an arrow progress from point A to point B? My basic understanding of Newton’s law of motion states that an object put into motion by one force will remain in motion until another force opposes it. An arrow will continue to fly until opposed by gravity, wind, or the force of friction of a stationary object. Zeno interjects by stating that at it occupies a time and space at every moment, therefore must be motionless at that time. If an arrow remains motionless, then how will it move from moment to moment? In his second paradox, he Zeno tries to trick one into thinking that the runner will never reach the end. However, the line he travels is finite. The line can be broken up into smaller and smaller units, but that also applies with each step the runner takes. The runner travels one unit per step and the goal is ten units long. With each step he takes he will travel one unit along that line. If Zeno wants to break the line into smaller units, then the unit of steps must also be broken down into the equivalent number of units. Each step takes up two units. Zeno’s paradox completely ignores this fundamental mathematical concept. Finally, his last paradox tries to confuse audience into submission and acceptance of his theory. Again, I feel he reapplies the same idea of the line that can be broken down infinitely. If the turtle travels one unit per hour and is ten units ahead of Achilles, and Achilles travels ten units per hour, he will undoubtedly catch up to the turtle and overtake him. Zeno may provide an interesting perspective our world, but I find it absurd and unrealistic.
-Benjamin Louie
Zeno's theory that there is no such thing as movement or change is somewhat flawed and proven to be by Bergson and other philosophers. However, his theory that the arrow is made up of many immobile or potential immobile moments does have a close association in the world of cinema. What has been failed to be acknowledged is the process in which a film is projected. It has been stated that there is movement involved to make the many still frames appear to be moving. This is true, yet the intermittent motion that takes place in the projection is left out of the explanation. Intermittent motion is when each frame that passes through the projector stops for the smallest instant so the picture can be displayed without being blurred. This means the cinema is made up of many still moments in time, much like the arrow is made up of still moments rather than constant movement.
-Joey Ponticello
Post a Comment