It can be difficult to teach Zeno’s paradox to a class of incoming freshmen. Therefore, I was delighted when a student of mine pointed me to a scene from the romantic comedy I.Q. from 1994, which perfectly, and humorously, captures the logic of the paradox often referred to as “The Stadium.” Zeno argued that, if Being were infinitely divisible, then motion would be impossible.
If space is an infinite series of spatial units, then Catherine Boyd (played by Meg Ryan) would never reach Ed Walters (played by Tim Robbins) on the other side of the dance floor.
To get to Ed, Catherine would first have to cover half of the distance between them. Then she would have to cover half of the remaining distance, and then half of the distance remaining after that, and so on ad infinitum. Hence, she would never be united with Ed in a dance because the distance between them would never shrink to nothing. The space separating the two could always be divided into an even smaller unit.
Having seen the logic of Zeno’s paradox acted out in this video, my students have a much easier time understanding it. We are then better set up to discuss how this logic makes motion impossible. While it is true that Catherine will never reach Ed, it is equally true that Catherine cannot even begin to move toward Ed. Imagining that the dance floor consists of an infinite series of spatial units, Catherine would first have to cover half of the series to get to Ed. But before covering that half, she would have to cover half of that half, and then half of that half, and so on, resulting in an infinite number of steps. Therefore, Catherine would never even begin to move toward Ed, since one cannot get to the end of an infinite series.
Having watched this scene with my students, I find that I can better explain what a reductio ad absurdum is.
Despite the impossibility of the couple ever reaching each other, they do, in fact, unite in a dance. Reflecting on Catherine’s infallible logic, Ed defiantly asks, “How did that happen then?” “I don’t know,” she responds. Of course Catherine can move across the dance floor to get to Ed! And so can all of us because motion is indeed possible. I emphasize to my students that Zeno is not arguing that motion is impossible, but that this absurd conclusion would follow if one were to assume that Being is infinitely divisible. The paradox was constructed as a counterargument to those who denied Zeno’s teacher’s—Parmenides—understanding of Being as one complete and indivisible whole. By assuming that such opponents are correct, Zeno showed that they must also be committed to the absurd position that motion is impossible. He reduced his opponents to absurdity to provide support for his own view that Being is one and indivisible.
Possible Readings:
Matson, W. I. (1987). A New History of Philosophy: Ancient and Medieval. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
The Teaching and Learning Video Series is designed to share pedagogical approaches to using humorous video clips for teaching philosophy. Humor, when used appropriately, has empirically been shown to correlate with higher retention rates. If you are interested in contributing to this series, please email the Series Editor, William A. B. Parkhurst, Parkhurw@gvsu.edu.
Jenny Strandberg
Dr. Strandberg received her PhD in Philosophy with a certificate in Women’s and Gender Studies from Stony Brook University in 2020. Her scholarship broadly explores Plato’s political philosophy and its relevance for contemporary issues, examining a notion of truth in politics and statesmanship as a form of expertise. In 2015, Jenny received a teaching award from Stony Brook’s Department of Women’s and Gender Studies for her commitment to social justice, teaching, and learning in the classroom. She is a certified online and hybrid course instructor who has taught a variety of philosophy courses within the State University of New York system. In 2022, she joined the Philosophy, Theology, and Religious Studies Department at Sacred Heart University to teach courses in critical thinking and ancient philosophy.
