Zeno set a terrible precedent in the history of philosophy by setting logic at odds with observable reality. Once that mistake was accepted, reality become secondary to what was presented as reason, eventually leading to Platonic Forms, Kantian categories, Hegelian and Marxist dialectics, and even the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Zeno has much to answer for.
Zeno assumed distance infinitely divisible but not time. Given the resulting paradox, he should have known at least one of his two assumptions was wrong. Had he been smarter, he would have developed calculus from his apparent paradox..The benefit to humanity was to clearly show philosophers aren’t necessarily right or smart.
Late for what?
Hence, quantum mechanics.
This quote was cute, though: "Seneca the Younger commented a few centuries later, “If I accede to Parmenides there is nothing left but the One; if I accede to Zeno, not even the One is left.” ".He liked to show ideas were absurd by taking them to their extremes. If a premise won’t survive near its limits, it is wrong.
reductio ad absurdum
@Night-Gaunt49“You need food to survive. Too much can kill you.The same with fresh water. Too much can kill you. Reduced to an Absurdity.”.Nope, first you need a premise:All food is good for you.orAll food is bad for you..By going to the extremes, you quickly demonstrate the absurdity of either statement..Interestingly, we have some laws which ban all substances if they can be shown to cause harm at ANY level.
This is absurd — and law.
“Too much can kill you. Reduced to an Absurdity.”*NG – Most of today’s discussion was beyond me, but your summary makes sense. Would it also apply to too much philosophy? And therefore it is true that too much of any good thing is bad?
Darrin Bell and Theron Heir