Zeno argues against motion by saying that if anything moves, then it must either move in the place where it is or in the place where it is not. Given that the latter is impossible because no thing can be or be acted upon at the place where it is not, a thing must be at the place at which it is. Therefore, things are at rest and motion is an illusion.~ The Book of Dead Philosophers by Simon Critchley ~
Well, look here. As promised, a snippet from the book I'm currently reading. (I even progressed to chapter 2 this afternoon. Amazing, isn't it?)
I have no astute commentary to add at this time. I find this perspective interesting and I need some time to ponder it. While I'm thinking it over, what say you?
I have no astute commentary to add at this time. I find this perspective interesting and I need some time to ponder it. While I'm thinking it over, what say you?
Not a very Taoist perspective. ;
ReplyDeleteSounds great, i like his thinking.
ReplyDeleteHe sets up a dual, refuses relative, and explodes.
Baroness,
ReplyDeleteWhy?
This reminds me of a Zen Buddhist koan I read, which essentially says the same thing.
ReplyDelete--
Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." They argued back and forth but could not agree. Hui-neng, the sixth Patriarch,said: "Gentlemen! It is not the flag that moves. It is not the wind that moves. It is your mind that moves." The two monks were struck with awe.
the argument doesn't make sense because he argues that motion has to occur in a fixed space! which is completely absurd. an object can't move totally "in" a space, rather it moves "through" a space.
ReplyDeletetaking that philosophy, change is nearly impossible! because without motion, we cannot become things we are not. the process of growing up is motion, and if all our cells didn't move, we wouldn't exist.
i actually find the opposite is *more* true (not completely true)... that "at rest" is an illusion and everything is in motion! in fact physics asserts that a solid isn't really "solid" at all... it's merely made up of tiny particles that vibrate. (and those particles might be made of pure vibrations!) so both on a large scale and a small scale i find that motion is more constant and stillness is fleeting.
also i think i understand why baroness would think that this philosophy is not taoist, because taoism emphasizes the fluidity of things, water and a river being its most common and powerful analogy. but in taoism movement and non-movement are both encouraged, and perhaps it is implied that they are the same! :) depends on how you read the text.
ReplyDeleteMovement is the key to the Tao, the taiji is dynamic. I think iktomi gets it.
ReplyDelete