##
Zeno and Anaxagoras

It has seemed to some people that Zeno’s argument of the race course
is directed against the kind of conception of space as infinitely divisible
that Anaxagoras is proposing; so they conclude that Zeno is responding to
Anaxagoras.

This is chronologically possible. But it seems more likely that Anaxagoras
is proposing a way out of Zeno’s paradox of plurality. (Cf. McKirihan,
*Philosophy Before Socrates*, pp. 217-18)

In his Paradox of Plurality, Zeno had argued that
a thing’s ultimate parts (of which there are infinitely many) would
have to be either (a) of finite size or (b) of no size at all. But if (a),
the thing would be infinitely large (for no matter how small the smallest
part is, an infinite number of such parts would add up to an infinitely large
size); and if (b), the thing would be of no size at all (since the sum of
an infinite number of zeroes is still zero).

Anaxagoras can be seen as arguing that this is a false dilemma, for it falsely
assumes that there are ultimate parts of the thing we are considering. But
if there are no such parts (“of the small there is no smallest”)
the argument for the first horn (a) of the dilemma breaks down. This is what
we pointed out earlier in criticizing the Infinite Sum Principle we found
implicit in the paradox of plurality.

So it seems likelier that Anaxagoras is replying to Zeno than the other way
around. Zeno tried to show that if there are many, they would have to be
both infinitely large and infinitely small. Anaxagoras replies that they
would have to be infinitely large only if there is a smallest of the small.
But, he says, there is not a smallest of the small, so Zeno’s argument fails.

Go to the lecture
on Zeno 's Argument against Plurality.

Go back to the lecture
on Anaxagoras

Return to the PHIL 320 Home Page

Copyright © 2002, S. Marc Cohen