In the 400s B.C., Ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea proposed that traveling between two points was impossible because getting anywhere required getting halfway there, which required getting halfway to the halfway point, and so on. His conclusion, called Zeno's Paradox, was that there were an infinite number of points to traverse between two places and, since one cannot possibly walk an infinite number of steps, any and all movement was impossible.
Of course, the logical answer (proposed by Aristotle, no less) is that moving over an infinitely small distance requires an infinitely small amount of time. (In calculus speak, the limit as distance goes to zero proves that time also goes to zero.)
The point is that a series of compromises -- a series of steps to the halfway point -- can often be the only way to get achieve a goal. Hence the name of this blog: "Zeno's Fallacy." Many politicians, world leaders, clergy, economists, etc. seem to believe that only by sticking to their guns will they get what they want. The opposite is often true: failing to walk to the halfway point ensures you stay at square one, unable to ever advance.
In debates over big government vs. small government, evolution vs. creationism, and realism vs. liberalism, to name a few, people often fail to see any middle ground. Even as a high school student (or perhaps because of that), it seems like the compromises and the halfway points exist, yet no one wants to suggest them.
I hope to be able to discuss some of these issues here over the coming year. It seems like we're living through a pivotal time where key questions about politics, economics, and our culture are being determined; I'm excited to have the chance to blog about some of them. Keep checking back and so long for now.
The correct date display in modern times is 'B.C.E.' not your antiquated 'B.C.' And clearly Zeno was right about it being impossible to get between two points. Have you ever been on Willow Road? Clearly not, otherwise you would not have fallaciously reasoned against my proposition! Also, your letter implies that you commit, or urge others to, the fallacy of false equivalence. If the goal is truth, compromise is silly. Economists argue what is true about the manner in which scarce resources are allocated; theories and models aren't really compromises. If there were two politicians and one were to claim that the world is flat and the other to claim that the world is an oblate spheroid, would you compromise and say that views differ on the shape of the earth or would you say that someone is right and someone is wrong? There is often a necessity in "failing to see middle ground." Also, you sound like Rick Perry with your example of evolution; there is no debate over evolution; in the scientific sense of the term, it is a theory that is indeed a fact.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile your wit is as sharp as ever, Andrew, I do not advocate for compromise over issues of fact. Of course, between the flat-earth politician and the oblate-spheroid politician there is no room for compromise. I agree with you that the media often, in the name of "equal representation," presents ludicrous views (see: Trump, Donald) as just "another side of the story."
ReplyDeleteStill, pragmatism over issues where there is *dispute* is valuable. Witness the current debate over the CR in Congress. Oh, how much 1.3 million non-essential federal employees wish there was more compromise. Evolution is touchy, but even there a middle ground can be found. For instance, some Christians see the seven days as allegorical and standing in for evolution.