HoP 008 - 你无法从这里到达那里 - 芝诺和梅利苏斯

你好。

Hi.

我是彼得·亚当森，欢迎收听《哲学史》播客，本节目由伦敦国王学院和利弗休姆信托基金支持制作。

I'm Peter Adamson, and you're listening to the History of Philosophy podcast, brought to you with the support of King's College London and the Leverhulme Trust.

今天这一集叫《你无法从这里到达那里》，讲的是埃利亚学派的芝诺和梅利苏斯。想象你正站在网球场的底线。

Today's episode, You Can't Get There From Here, The Eleatic Philosophy of Zeno and Melissus Imagine you're standing at the baseline of a tennis court.

就是你发球时站的那条后线。

That's the line at the back where you serve from.

现在该换边了，你打算直接走到球场的另一端。

It's time to change sides, so you're about to walk straight across to the other end of the court.

你开始了一段将近24米的路程，这正是标准球场的长度。

You set off undertaking a journey of almost 24 meters, the length of a regulation court.

听起来并不算特别困难。

It doesn't seem particularly daunting.

当你走到一半时，当然会遇到球网挡路，不过你想着，等真到了那儿再想办法解决吧。

When you get halfway, of course, there will be a net blocking your path, but you figure you'll cope with that problem when you get to it.

也许你可以像以前网球选手打完比赛那样，轻松一跃跳过去。

Maybe you can leap over it jauntily, the way tennis players used to do at the end of the match.

但在你到达那道在12米外的球网之前，你得先走到你这一半球场的中线上。

But before you get to the net, which looms some 12 meters in the distance, you'll be arriving at the line drawn halfway across your side of the court.

像你们这些网球行家知道的，这条线叫发球线。

As those of you who are tennis experts know, this is called the service line.

到那时，你已经走完了全程的四分之一，大约六米远。

At that point, you will have completed a quarter of your trip, having walked about six meters.

但要走到那里，你得先走到发球线的一半位置。

But of course to do that, you've first got to get halfway to the service line.

你需要往前走三米。

You need to walk three meters forward.

而要走这三米，你又得先走完这三米的一半。

And, of course, to do that, you've got to walk half of those three meters.

现在是不是感觉没那么轻松了？

It's starting to look a bit more daunting now, isn't it?

事实上，你仔细想想，要走到球场对面，你得完成无数个步骤。

In fact, now that you think about it, there is quite literally an infinite number of things you need to do to walk to the far side of the court.

要到达任何一点，你都得先走完到那一点的一半，再走完那一半的一半，如此类推。

To get to any point, you will need to travel halfway to that point, and halfway to that halfway point, and so on.

你永远都走不完这些中途点。

There's no end to the halfway points you'll need to visit.

你最好带足干粮。

You better bring a packed lunch.

这个思想实验——当然，不是真的在网球场上——是由公元前五世纪初的芝诺提出的。

This thought experiment, obviously without the tennis court, was invented by a man named Zeno of Elea, who was born in the early fifth century BC.

他是巴门尼德的助手和学生，我们上周刚讲过巴门尼德。

He was the associate and student of Parmenides, who we looked at last week.

和萨摩斯的梅利苏斯一起，芝诺是巴门尼德最重要的追随者。

Along with Melissus of Samos, Zeno was the most important follower of Parmenides.

芝诺以他提出的悖论闻名，这些悖论都是为了支持巴门尼德的观点：存在是不变的，而且只能是一个整体。

Zeno is renowned for the paradoxes he invented in support of Parmenides' theory that being cannot change or be more than one.

‘悖论’这个词也是源自古希腊语的英语词汇之一。

The word paradox is another one of these English words that comes from ancient Greek.

‘para’在这里意思是‘与……相反’，‘doxa’意思是‘信念’，所以如果某事是‘paradoxon’，那就是违背了我们的常识。

Para means, in this case, against, and doxa means belief, so if something is para doxon, it is contrary to our beliefs.

齐诺的‘中点悖论’，通常被称为‘二分法悖论’，正是在这个意义上构成悖论：它让你觉得移动是不可能的，但你又明明相信自己能动。

Zeno's paradox of the halfway points, usually called the stadium or dichotomy paradox, is paradoxical in this sense: it shows you that it's impossible to move, and yet, of course, you still believe you can move.

事实上，你每天都在移动。

In fact, you move all the time.

这时候，你就得开始做哲学思考了。

It's at this point that you need to do some philosophy.

悖论是引导人们接触哲学的绝佳方式，因为它们逼着我们重新审视那些平时习以为常的事。

Paradoxes are a great way to introduce people to philosophy, because they force us to think hard about things we normally take for granted.

哲学里有各种各样的悖论，比如道德悖论。

There are many kinds of paradoxes in philosophy, for instance, moral paradoxes.

你面前有两栋着火的大楼，一栋里是你妈妈，另一栋里是几个无辜的孩子。

There are two burning buildings in front of you, and one is your mother, and the other several innocent children.

你只能救其中一个建筑里的人，你该怎么办？

You can only save the occupants of one building, what should you do?

还有关于时间和空间的悖论。

Then there are paradoxes about time and space.

比如，你坐上时间机器，回到过去，阻止自己出生。

For instance, you hop in a time machine, go back, and stop yourself from being born.

但那样的话，你又是怎么存在下来，有资格回到过去的呢？

But then how did you exist in order to go back in time in the first place?

这当然就是经典电影《回到未来》的核心设定，也是我所知道的唯一一个把时间哲学和德罗宁跑车结合起来的例子。

This, of course, is the basis of that philosophical classic, the film Back to the Future, the only case I know of where the philosophy of time comes together with a DeLorean.

还有逻辑悖论，比如理发师悖论：假设有个理发师，他给所有不自己刮胡子的男人刮胡子。

There are also logical paradoxes, for instance, the barber's paradox: imagine a barber who shaves every man in the village who doesn't shave himself.

那这位理发师该不该给自己刮胡子呢？

Does the barber shave himself or not?

或者说谎者悖论：如果我说‘我现在说的这句话是假话’，那这句话到底是真是假？

Or the liar's paradox: if I say, what I'm now saying is a lie, is that a lie or not?

以此类推。

And so on.

显然，不同的悖论需要不同的解决方式。

Obviously, different paradoxes call for different kinds of solutions.

你可能会说，像着火的建筑这类道德困境其实算不上真正的悖论，只是没有标准答案而已。

You might say the burning building and other such moral puzzles are not really paradoxes, it's just there's no right answer.

有时候，世界会抛给我们一些无法用道德化解的悲剧性处境。

The world sometimes lands us with tragic situations that cannot be resolved morally.

对于《回到未来》这种情况，我们或许可以直接说，这类悖论证明了时间旅行是不可能的。

In the case of Back to the Future, we might simply say that such paradoxes show time travel to be impossible.

同样，我们也可以认为，逻辑悖论里的那个理发师根本不可能存在。

Similarly, we might say that the barber in the logical paradox just can't exist.

每一种悖论都迫使我们停下来，认真思考眼前的问题——无论是穿越网球场、时间的本质，还是道德困境。

In each case, the paradox forces us to stop and think about the subject at hand, whether it be walking across tennis courts, the nature of time, or moral dilemmas.

但我们必须假设，悖论终究是要被解决的；几乎没人会真的认为，既可能又不可能走过网球场，或者‘这句话是假的’这句话既是真又是假。

But we have to assume that the paradox is meant to be resolved in one way or another hardly anyone wants to say that it both is and is not possible to walk across the tennis court, or that the sentence This is a lie is both true and false.

人们一想到二分法悖论，很自然就会以为任务是找出芝诺推理中的错误。

When people think about the dichotomy paradox, they naturally enough assume that the task is to spot the error in Zeno's reasoning.

这种思路默认了哲学家的职责是为常识辩护，对抗悖论。

This approach assumes that the philosopher's job is to defend common sense against the paradox.

既然我们明明能走过网球场，那肯定哪里出问题了。

Since we clearly do walk across tennis courts, there must be a mistake somewhere.

当然，这种反应完全合理，但并不是芝诺真正想看到的。

Of course, this is a perfectly reasonable response, but it isn't what Zeno was hoping for.

作为巴门尼德的追随者，他真正想证明的是：运动根本就是不可能的。

What he wanted to do, as a follower of Parmenides, was to show that motion really is impossible.

我们上周就看到，巴门尼德认为，一切运动和变化都不可能，因为它们必然涉及‘非存在’。

Parmenides, as we saw last week, had argued that all motion and change are impossible, because they would involve non being in some way.

巴门尼德是从根本原则出发正面论证的，尤其是：我们只能言说和思考‘存在’，永远无法触及‘非存在’。

Parmenides argued positively, starting out from first principles, in particular that one can speak and think only about being, but never non being.

从这个原则出发，他推导出：存在是不变的、永恒的，像一个完美均衡的球体。

From this principle, he establishes that being is unchanging and eternal, a perfectly balanced sphere.

芝诺采取了一种更具有破坏性的方法。

Zeno takes a different approach, which is more destructive.

通过他的二分法悖论，他试图说明运动这个概念本身充满矛盾。

With his dichotomy paradox, he tries to show us that the concept of motion is itself beset by contradiction.

柏拉图证实了这一点，他在一篇以巴门尼德为主角的对话中，让芝诺成为其中的人物。

That this was Zeno's method is confirmed by Plato, who makes Zeno a character in a dialogue starring Parmenides.

在《巴门尼德篇》里，柏拉图描绘了苏格拉底与芝诺本人讨论他的著作。

In Plato's Parmenides, he shows Socrates discussing Zeno's book with Zeno himself.

苏格拉底问他，自己是否正确理解了这本书的意图——即证明相信变化和多元必然导致自相矛盾。

Socrates asks whether he has understood the goal of Zeno's book rightly, to show that belief in change and multiplicity leads inevitably to self contradiction.

完全正确，芝诺回答。

Exactly right, says Zeno.

关于芝诺著作的结构，学界还有一些不确定之处，也不清楚所有归于他的悖论是否都出自这一本书，但我们知道，他确实提出了一系列悖论式的论证，其中一些似乎成对出现。

There is some uncertainty about how Zeno's book was structured, and whether all the paradoxes ascribed to him were contained in this one book, But, we know that he did produce a whole series of paradoxical arguments, some of which were apparently paired together.

比如，他先用一个论证说明，如果事物是多个的，那么它们就是有限的；接着又用另一个论证说明，如果事物是多个的，那么它们就是无限的。

For instance, he used one argument to show that if things are many, then things are finite, and then he had another argument to show that if things are many, then things are infinite.

把这两个论点合起来看，就能得出结论：如果事物是多个的，那它们就必须既是有限的又是无限的，这显然自相矛盾。

Taking the two arguments together, we can conclude that if things are many, they must be both finite and infinite, which is a contradiction.

所以，事物并不是多个的，而是存在本身是唯一的，这正是巴门尼德所主张的。

Thus, things are not many instead, being is one, just as Parmenides taught.

我们掌握了不少芝诺悖论的资料。

We have information about a number of Zeno's paradoxes.

有些悖论相当复杂，所以我只讲几个，况且我已经快讲到这期播客的一半了。

Some are rather complicated, so I'll discuss only a few of them, especially since I'm already almost halfway through this podcast.

芝诺，我这样驳斥你。

Zeno, I refute you thus.

首先，我们再回头看看二分法悖论。

First, let's return to the dichotomy paradox.

这次我们去掉网球场，直接看这个悖论。

Here it is again without the tennis court.

无论你要从A点移动到B点，都必须先到达C点，也就是A和B之间的中点。

Whenever you move from A to B, you have to move to C, the point halfway between A and B.

要这么做，你得先到达D点，也就是A和C的中点，以此类推。

To do that, you have to move to D, the point halfway between A and C, and so on.

这样的点有无穷多个，也就是说，从A到B你得完成无穷多步，这显然是不可能的。

There will be an infinite number of such points, meaning that to move from A to B, you have to perform an infinite number of tasks, which is impossible.

正如亚里士多德在转述这个悖论时说的，你得依次接触无穷多个点，也就是每一个中点。

Or to put it as Aristotle does when he relates the paradox, you have to come into contact with infinitely many things, namely the halfway points.

但为什么这不可能呢？

But why is this impossible?

要么是因为你只有有限的时间去经过所有这些点，要么就是根本没人能做完无穷多件事。

It's either because you only have a finite time to visit all these points, or simply because no one can do an infinite number of things.

芝诺的另一个悖论其实也表达了类似的观点。

Another of Zeno's paradoxes makes pretty much the same point.

我们想象阿基里斯和乌龟赛跑，乌龟先出发一段距离。

We imagine Achilles racing a tortoise, with the tortoise getting a head start.

阿基里斯跑得快得多，可每次他赶到乌龟刚才的位置，乌龟又往前挪了一小段。

The much faster Achilles tries to catch up, but every time he reaches the point where the tortoise just was, the tortoise has moved on at least a little bit further.

当阿喀琉斯到达这个新位置时，乌龟又往前移动了一点。

And when Achilles reaches that new position, the tortoise has moved on again.

无论阿喀琉斯跑得多快，他都追不上乌龟。

Achilles cannot overtake the tortoise, no matter how fast he runs.

我们除了站起来走开，用实际行动证明运动确实可能之外，还能用别的方法反驳芝诺吗？

Can we refute Zeno other than by getting up walking away, and thus proving that motion is possible after all?

人们常以为，现代数学，尤其是我们对无穷的理解，已经解决了二分法悖论。

It's often thought that somehow modern mathematics, and especially our modern notions of infinity, have solved the dichotomy paradox.

大概意思是，我们现在完全能接受这样一个级数：二分之一、四分之一、八分之一、十六分之一……加起来就是一。

The idea would be, I guess, that we now have no problem in accepting that the series half one quarter one eighth one sixteenth and so on just adds up to one.

事实上，我们甚至可以说，这个级数所代表的数，就是一本身。

In fact, we might say that the number represented by that series just is one.

所以，距离就是这样被覆盖的。

So that's how the distance is covered.

但这根本算不上真正的解答。

But this is really no solution.

毕竟，芝诺悖论恰恰依赖于这个事实：整个距离等于这个无穷级数的和。

After all, Zeno's paradox relies precisely on this fact, that the whole distance is equal to the sum of the infinite series.

这并不是说芝诺对无穷的理解和我们完全一样，但这一点可能并不是关键所在。

That's not to say that Zeno's understanding of infinity is the same as ours, but this may not be the decisive issue.

问题不仅关乎数学，更关乎时间和空间。

The question is not only about mathematics, but about time and space.

当然，我们现在能用数学精确地描述将空间或运动分割成无限小部分的概念。

Certainly, we can now mathematically model the idea of dividing up a space or a motion into infinitely small parts.

但芝诺悖论不只是一个数学模型，它真正探讨的是时间、空间和运动。

But Zeno's paradox isn't only about a mathematical model it's about time, space, and motion.

他会问我们：好吧，你们有了数学模型，但它和真实发生的事情有什么关系？

His question to us will be, Okay, you've got your mathematical model, but how does it relate to what is really going on?

亚里士多德给出了我认为更切中要害的回应。

Aristotle offers what I think is a more relevant response to Zeno.

他说，从A点到B点所需的时间，可以和这段距离一样被无限分割。

He says that one can divide the time needed to move from A to B right along with the distance from A to B.

比如，如果你从A点到B点花了二十秒，那么走到一半就用十秒，走到四分之一处就用五秒，以此类推。

For instance, if it takes you twenty seconds to get from A to B, it will take you ten seconds to get halfway there, five seconds to get a quarter of the way there, and so on.

齐诺错就错在以为要完成无限多个点，就得花上无限长的时间，其实时间跟距离一样，都会被同步分割。

It's simply a mistake on Zeno's part to think that one needs an infinite amount of time to visit this infinite number of points, because the divisions will apply to both the time and the distance.

不过，这个回应默认了齐诺担心的是运动耗时无限，这一点其实并不明确。

This response, though, assumes that Zeno was worried about the motion taking an infinite amount of time, which isn't obvious.

正如我所说，他真正的意思是，在有限的时间内完成整个运动，怎么可能同时完成无限多个分段动作呢？

As I said, his point might be that it is impossible to perform an infinite number of partial motions in the finite amount of time it takes to perform the whole motion.

如果是这样，亚里士多德的回应其实并没有真正解决这个悖论。

In that case, Aristotle's response does not really solve the paradox.

说到时间，我们就不得不提齐诺另一个精妙的论证——飞矢不动悖论。

This mention of time brings us to another brilliant argument of Zeno's, the paradox of the arrow.

我们来想象一支箭，正从弓手飞向靶子的途中。

Here we consider an arrow in mid flight on its way from archer to target.

现在，设想箭在飞行中的任何一个瞬间——就像被慢镜头定格下来的画面。

Now, consider how things are with this arrow at any one moment during the flight imagine it captured by a stop motion camera.

在这个定格的瞬间，它根本没在动，因为任何移动都必须经过一段时间。

In this freeze frame moment, it isn't moving at all, because at least a little time has to pass for anything to move.

齐诺说，它静止不动，是因为它正抵着一个与自身相等的空间。

As Zeno says, it is at rest because it is, as he says, against something equal.

他的意思是，大概就像这样：在这一刻，箭正好与它所占据的空间完全重合，所以相对于那个空间，它是静止的。

What he means by this is, I suppose, something like this: at this instant, the arrow is exactly aligned with the bit of space it is occupying, so it is at rest with respect to that space.

当然，在箭飞行的每一个瞬间，情况都是如此。

Of course, this will be true for any instant during the flight of the arrow.

这就构成了悖论：在飞行的每一刻，箭似乎都悬在空中一动不动，但整个飞行过程中，它又确实从弓箭手飞到了目标。

This then is the paradox: at any instant during the arrow's flight, it seems to be hovering motionless in the air, yet over the whole time of its flight, the arrow apparently moves from boat to target.

我们自然会觉得，齐诺对这个情况的描述肯定哪里出了问题。

Again, we naturally assume that there's something wrong with the way Zeno has described the situation.

亚里士多德的回应是：时间并不是由没有持续时间的瞬间组成的。

This is how Aristotle reacted: he complains that time is not made up of instants that have no duration.

相反，如果你要分割时间，就必须把它分成有持续时间的时段——哪怕短到百万分之一秒，那也还是需要时间流逝，而箭在这段极短的时间里也会移动一小段距离。

Rather, if you divide time, you have to divide it into periods of time Maybe very short periods, like a millionth of a second, but even a millionth of a second takes some time to elapse, and the arrow will move a little while that little time passes.

当然，芝诺会直接反对。

Of course Zeno would just disagree.

他会说，如果此刻运动不可能发生，那它就永远不可能发生。

He would say that if motion cannot happen now, it cannot happen at all.

这正是他的本意：作为巴门尼德的追随者，他根本就不相信任何事物能真正移动。

And this is the intended conclusion: as a follower of Parmenides, he simply doesn't believe that anything can move.

不过，芝诺的悖论并不都跟运动有关。

Not all of Zeno's paradoxes, though, concern motion.

有些悖论针对的是我们更根本的假设——世界上不止存在一个东西。

Some have to do with our even more basic assumption that there is more than one thing in the world.

别忘了，巴门尼德认为，一切存在都是不变的、永恒的、连续的、且唯一的。

Remember, Parmenides claimed that all being is unchanging, eternal, continuous, and one.

这意味着，比如你和我其实是同一个东西，除非我们根本就不存在——但无论哪种说法，都很难让人接受。

This would mean, for instance, that you and I are the same thing, unless neither of us exist at all, which is pretty hard to believe either way.

但芝诺的悖论试图让我们相信，即使我们假设世界上存在多个事物，结果也同样荒谬。

But Zeno's paradoxes try to persuade us that if we assume that more than one thing exists, the results are just as bad.

比如，他试图证明，在任何两个不同的事物之间，必然存在无穷多个其他事物。

For instance, he tried to show that between any two distinct things, there must be an infinity of other things.

和二分法、飞矢一样，我们需要推测这个论证具体是怎么运作的，但我想他的意思大概是这样的：想象你有两个物体，叫它们A和B。

As with the dichotomy and the arrow, we need to speculate about exactly how this argument should work, but I think the idea was something like this: Imagine you've got two objects, call them A and B.

既然它们不是同一个连续的整体，那它们之间一定有某种分隔，所以必然存在第三个物体C，把A和B隔开。

Well, they must be separated from one another, because they aren't just one continuous object, so there must be some third object, C, which is separating A and B.

但问题是，C为什么和A不同，又和B不同呢？

But now, why is C distinct from A on the one hand, and B on the other hand?

那就必须有第四个东西把A和C隔开，第五个东西把C和B隔开。

There must be some fourth thing separating A and C, and a fifth thing separating C and B.

和二分法一样，这个推理可以无限重复下去。

As with the dichotomy, we can repeat this argument over and over.

唯一的出路是解释清楚：两个事物怎么才能直接接触，却不合并成一个整体，而是形成一个连续的整体。

The only way to escape is to give some explanation of how two things can be touching each other directly without being a single object because they form a continuous body.

当然，有人可能会试着给出这样的解释。

Of course, one could try to give such an explanation.

亚里士多德是第一个认真探讨这个问题的人，他专门花了一大段文字来讨论：两个不同的事物究竟怎样才算真正接触。

Again, Aristotle is the first to try he devotes a whole discussion to what it means for two distinct things to be in contact.

某种程度上，亚里士多德的回应恰恰证明了芝诺悖论的深刻影响力。

In a way, Aristotle's response is a tribute to the fruitfulness of Zeno's paradoxes.

即使这些悖论并没有真的让我们相信‘一切存在都是单一的’，它们却迫使我们去思考运动、时间以及物理接触这些概念的本质。

Even if they do not really tempt us to believe that all being is one, they do force us to ponder the nature of such things as motion, time, and physical contact.

正因如此，哲学家们至今仍觉得他的悖论很有价值。

This is why philosophers still find his paradoxes useful.

和亚里士多德一样，他们也通过澄清芝诺悖论该如何被解决，来构建自己关于运动等概念的正面理论。

Like Aristotle, they can formulate their positive ideas about motion and so on, by explaining how Zeno's paradoxes should be resolved.

在公元前五世纪另一位伟大的埃利亚学派思想家——萨摩斯的梅里苏斯身上，我们看到了对巴门尼德遗产的另一种理解方式。

We find a rather different approach to Parmenides' legacy in the other great Eleatic of the fifth century BC, Melissus of Samos.

细心的听众或许还记得，萨摩斯岛也正是毕达哥拉斯的故乡，位于爱奥尼亚海岸外的东地中海区域。

Sharp eared listeners will remember that Samos is also the island that gave us Pythagoras, in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Ionia.

所以我们说梅里苏斯是埃利亚学派的，指的是他继承了埃利亚的巴门尼德的思想，而不是说他本人来自埃利亚。

So when we call Melissus an Eleatic, we mean that he followed the philosophy of Parmenides of Eleaea, not that he was from Eleaea.

与毕达哥拉斯不同，梅里苏斯在萨摩斯的历史上扮演了重要角色。

Unlike Pythagoras, Melissus played a major role in the history of Samos.

历史学家兼哲学家普鲁塔克告诉我们，梅里苏斯曾率领他的人民在一场海战中击败雅典人，赢得非常漂亮。

The historian and philosopher Plutarch tells us that Melissus led his people in a naval battle against the Athenians, and won handsomely.

这场战役发生在公元前五世纪中期，这意味着梅里苏斯很可能和芝诺一样，是巴门尼德的下一代人。

This battle was fought around the middle of the fifth century BC, which probably means that Melissus was, like Zeno, a generation younger than Parmenides.

他甚至可能比芝诺还要年轻一些。

He may have been younger still than Zeno.

无论如何，他的哲学显然是在发展和捍卫巴门尼德的思想，但也在一些关键点上偏离了老师的观点。

In any case, his philosophy is clearly an attempt to develop and defend Parmenides, but not without departing from the master on some points.

梅里苏斯采用的是巴门尼德的方法，而不是芝诺的方式。

Melissus follows the method of Parmenides, rather than Zeno.

也就是说，他正面论证一切存在都是不变且唯一的，而不是像芝诺那样用悖论来质疑运动和多元性。

That is, he argues positively that all being is unchanging and one, instead of inventing paradoxes to undermine motion and multiplicity.

和巴门尼德一样，他从‘存在不可能有开端’这一观点出发——因为如果它有开端，那就意味着它来自非存在，而这显然是荒谬的。

Like Parmenides, he starts from the idea that being cannot have started to do that, it would have to come from non being, which is absurd.

他现在把这个观点也应用到了空间上。

He now applies this point to space as well as time.

巴门尼德曾认真地说过，存在是球形的，但梅利苏斯却否认存在有任何边界。

Whereas Parmenides had said, apparently quite seriously, that being is spherical in shape, Melissus denies that being has any limits at all.

毕竟，如果存在有边界，那边界之外就必然是非存在，而非存在根本不可能存在。

After all, if it had limits, there would have to be non being beyond those limits, and there is no such thing as non being.

因此，他称存在是无限的——这其实是阿那克西曼德‘无限’原则的回归。

Thus he calls being unlimited or infinite it's the revenge of Anaximander's principle, the aperon.

这些对巴门尼德思想的发展表明，爱利亚学派的哲学并非一成不变的教条；相反，‘不变的存在’这一理论本身也在演变，被芝诺和梅利苏斯各自引向了不同方向，甚至不惜违背导师巴门尼德的教诲。

These developments of Parmenides' ideas show that the Eleatic philosophy wasn't just a static, received doctrine rather, the theory of unchanging being itself changed, and was taken in different directions by Zeno and Melissus, even at the price of contradicting the teachings of Father Parmenides.

不过，梅利苏斯的另一个观点，想必会让巴门尼德非常满意。

Another one of Melissus' ideas, though, would no doubt have delighted Parmenides.

这就是他关于运动不可能性的论证。

This is his argument against the possibility of motion.

他再次从排除非存在入手——这次他讨论的是虚空：不可能存在一个空无一物的地方，因为‘无’根本就不存在。

Again, he starts by ruling out non being in this case, the sort of non being he discusses is emptiness there cannot be a place with nothing in it, again, because there is no such thing as nothing.

换句话说，真空是不可能存在的。

To put it another way, void is impossible.

梅里苏斯进一步指出，如果没有虚空，运动就无从谈起。

Now Melissus points out that if there is no void, then that will make motion impossible.

毕竟，没有任何空隙能让任何东西移动进去。

After all, there will be no empty place for anything to move into.

整个存在就像一节满员的火车车厢，挤得严严实实，谁也动弹不得——这对像我一样住在伦敦的人来说，可是再熟悉不过的体验了。

The whole of being will be like a train compartment, packed so tightly that no one can budge a familiar experience to those of you who, like me, live in London.

面对梅里苏斯的这个论点，任何想为日常经验中运动确实存在辩护的人，只有两种回应方式。

In the wake of this argument of Melissuses, anyone who wants to defend the common sense idea that motion does exist has two possible responses.

一种是承认确实没有虚空，但坚持认为运动依然可能发生。

One would be to agree that there is no void, but insist that there is motion anyway.

只要一样东西移动，就必然有另一样东西被挤开。

Whenever one thing moves, something else is displaced.

想象一下，车厢里的人们艰难地挪动，每个人向前挪一步，占据前面那个人的位置，同时把自己的位置让给身后的人。

Imagine the people on the train compartment shuffling along, perhaps with difficulty, each moving into the space of their neighbor in front while they give up their place to the person behind.

这是亚里士多德的观点。

This was Aristotle's view.

另一种回应是说，除了伦敦地铁高峰期，没什么地方是真正塞满的。

The other response would be to say that, except in the London Underground at rush hour, no place is totally full.

确实存在虚空。

There is indeed void.

物体就在这种空隙中移动，互相碰撞。

Bodies move around in this emptiness, banging into each other.

这差不多就是我们今天所认为的。

That is more or less what we think today.

当然，我们现在知道，外太空是空的，或者基本是空的。

Of course, we now know that outer space is empty, or mostly empty.

但就连地球上的所有物体，其实也都是空隙多于实部——至少我上高中时是这么学的。

But also, every physical body down here on Earth turns out to consist of more empty space than full space, or at least that's what I was told in high school.

原子和分子就存在于这种虚空之中。

Atoms and molecules exist in the void.

我上高中的时候没人告诉我，这种观点其实非常古老。

What I wasn't told in high school is that this conception is a very old one.

它最初是为回应爱利亚学派，尤其是针对梅里苏斯而提出的。

It was first conceived in response to the Eleatics, and perhaps especially in reaction to Melissus.

这种观点由古希腊的原子论者留基伯和德谟克利特发展起来。

It was developed by the ancient atomists, Leucippus and Democritus.

他们是前苏格拉底哲学家中，最接近我们今天所接受的科学观点的人。

They are the presocratic thinkers who seem to come closest to the scientific doctrines we actually accept nowadays.

但毫不意外，这些古代原子论者的原子理论和现代原子论有很大不同。

But unsurprisingly, the atomic theory of these ancient atomists was very different from modern atomic theory.

古代原子论和巴门尼德、芝诺、梅里苏斯的爱利亚哲学一样，更多基于概念分析而非实证研究，但这并不让它变得没意思。

Ancient atomism, like the Eleatic philosophy of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus, was founded more on conceptual analysis than empirical investigation, but it's no less interesting for that.

下次请和我一起聊聊原子论者在哲学史上的观点——他们承认虚空，但不留下任何空隙。

So join me next time for The Atomists on the history of philosophy, with void, but without any gaps.