Zeno's Paradox Discussion with Garrett Mayer 

A fantastic discussion of mathematics. Thank you for mentioning Robert Knapp's book; I have read the first five (elementary) chapters, and found it challenging but rewarding, though I have not been so bold as to attempt the last three (advanced) chapters. Are you familiar with James Franklin's "An Aristotelian Realist Philosophy of Mathematics?" Franklin is not an Objectivist, but he and Knapp have cited each other's work, and it appears that they are thinking along broadly similar lines. My local university library has this book, and I hope to read it in the near future. I am looking for a book that gives the layperson a general overview of the field of mathematics. I started reading the celebrated "What is Mathematics?" by Robbins and Courant and got bogged down in technicalities in the first few chapters. I plan to return to it later on, but in the meantime I would appreciate any recommendations for more elementary reading on the subject. Perhaps something that takes a historical approach?

"1984" was published in 1948; Orwell simply reversed the digits. "Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957.

My understanding of the solution to Zeno's paradox: Any division of motion is purely cognitive. There isn't an infinite amount of steps in Achilles' or the tortoise's motion, for each there is only one continuous motion. To catch and surpass the tortoise Achilles doesn't have to complete an infinite number of steps, he only has to complete the one step of catching and then surpassing the tortoise. I'm fairly sure this isn't my original idea, but I don't remember my source for it. If you have any objections to this argument, feel free to voice them.

I have never spent any time on the paradox, but just spitballing here, isn't zenus only concrete conclusion is that the hare could never catch up to the tortoise so that they are absorbed into one entity? There is no amount of motion in relation between two objects where one object becomes the second. But the paradox is only commenting on the relationship between two objects. There is no paradox if you discuss the relationship of the two objects to some third object, I.e. this paradox goes away if you are discussing the relationship of a hare and a tortoise both traveling to a pond. Clearly the hare can outdistance the tortoise in that case. But at no point can the tortoise or the hair get so close to the pond to become the pond because of the law of existence and identity

It seems the socialist trick is that capitalism is a necessary stepping stone in human progress, but it becomes a point where it is more harmful than helpful. so every socialists argument is that now is the time where we are able to evolve past capitalism to something better