From what I gathered in class pertaining to Zeno’s Paradox, I’m not going to lie when I say that I was and still am pretty confused. But, I’ll entertain the conceptions I have about the paradox in an attempt to disprove Zeno. Amalgamating what I understand, Zeno’s Paradox speaks to how the distance between any two end points can be infinitely halved, thus somehow alluding to the fact that as far as we may move, we have never really started. Where Zeno is wrong lies in his distinction between a halfway point and an end point.
Let’s say I am leaving my apartment to go to Espresso Royale around the corner, that is my destination. Once I had gotten there, I would have had to pass by Replenish which lies halfway between my start and end points. What differs between Espresso and Replenish is that one was a destination whereas the other was an end point. Zeno posits that each end is in fact a halfway, which I can derive some merit from in that we always keep going and move forward. However, in that moment, Espresso was an end point; it existed as such and it was reached.
I am unsure as to whether this argument is making any sense spelled out into words as it does (/still doesn’t) in my head, but I’m trying to make a case that yes, a destination can simultaneously be the starting point of another journey, however that does not take away its position as an endpoint at the time.