Contradictions in Motion: Why They’re not Needed and Why They Wouldn’t Help

Abstract

In this paper we discuss Priest’s account of change and motion, contrasting it with its more orthodox rival, the Russellian account. The paper is divided in two parts. In first one we take a stance that is more sympathetic to the Russellian view, arguing that Priest’s arguments against it are inconclusive. In the second part, instead, we take a more sympathetic attitude towards Priest’s objections. We argue, however, that if these objections pose insurmountable difficulties to the Russellian account (which is what one of the authors of this paper indeed thinks), then they pose the same difficulties also to Priest’s favoured Hegelian account, and for the same reasons