Can You Run!

A Funny Conversation on the Negation of Motion; The Philosophy of Nagarjuna

Mom talks to his son, a high school kid. Sadly, her son seems to study philosophy at school. Mom tries to persuade him, a lazy and sedentary teenager, to do some exercise like going jogging.

Her son, a smooth-talking, wannabee philosopher, refutes the possibility of motion, and claims that one cannot run. He argues his theses in four ways, that one cannot engage in two acts at the same time; that one subject only has one action; that there is a question as to whether the subject and the action can be one; and that there is no such thing as now.

First, the son attempts to convince his Mom that one cannot run, by arguing that one cannot engage in two acts at a time.

Now Mom opens her mouth:

“You’re always playing videogames, eating McDonalds, and drinking coca-colas. I think you’ve got to go jogging, or do something like that, to lose weight and stay fit.”

“But Mom, I cannot run.”

“What do you mean by that?”

“Well, my philosophy teacher once taught me this:

A man already finished with running cannot be running;

A man yet to run cannot be running;

A man running now cannot be running.

Which means that I cannot run, cannot go jogging in any way!”

“I don’t get it.”

“Imagine a man finished with running. Now he’s at rest and not moving his feet.”

“I understand.”

“Suppose you see a man yet to run. He’s about to move his feet, but doesn’t begin to run yet. So he’s not running.”

“Certainly. But what about a man running now? He’s absolutely running, isn’t he?”

“Unfortunately, he’s not. It’s because you cannot do two things at the same time. Think about a boy swimming in the river.”

“But you cannot swim any more than a pig can fly.”

“Well, a pig may fly. Just watch the movie Porco Rosso, by that world famous Japanese animator, Miyazaki Hayao. In the movie says a pig, the hero, that a pig who cannot fly is just an ordinary pig, and then he flies high. He’s no ordinary pig.”

“What in the world are you talking about?”

“OK, let me go back to the subject. I cannot run at all, and it’s because motion in general is logically impossible. I’ll show you why.”

“Tell me why. But not like a philosopher, whose language is alien to me.”

“Or rather, philosophers themselves may be aliens in the true sense of the word. They can fight it out against Predators with that spell-like jargon.”

“Go back to your subject, or else I’ll be your predator.”

“OK, OK. Now we’re back at the man swimming in the river. He’s swimming and surely not walking along the bank. On the contrary, if he’s walking along the bank, he’s no doubt not swimming in the river. He cannot both swim in the river and walk along the bank at the same time.

“I agree.”

“What about a girl, say, my little sister, biting a piece of apple pie? Now she’s biting one piece, and not yet biting another. Which shows that a girl biting one piece is not biting another yet, because her cute little mouth is only enough to have one, not two. In brief, and in essence, a girl biting cannot be biting. You cannot involve yourself in two acts at a time. That’s why I say, a man running now cannot be running.”

“But your sister is stout, and she’s always eating like a horse.”

“That’s another story, Mom.”

From here on, he expounds the negation of motion, referring to what he calls the principle of one subject and one action, or predicate, which is similar to, but nonetheless different than, the impossibility of simultaneous engagement in two acts. The son speaks:

“Now I’m going to tell you another story, too. Philosophically speaking, one either is or is not; one cannot both be and not be simultaneously. You can be born only if you’re not in the world; you can die only when you’re alive under the sun. Thinking logically along this line, a dead man cannot die, and a living man cannot be alive.”

“I don’t know what to say. I’m at a loss.”

“Suppose I want to see my girlfriend.”

“But you don’t have a girlfriend. You never had.”

“Just imagine I’ve got a girlfriend. And I promise her to come to see her at night in her room. In order to enter her room, I’ve got to be out of it. It’s because once you’re in, you cannot enter, since you’re already in. you can enter only if you’re out. If you want to get in, you’ve got to be not in. Which leads to the conclusion that a man entering a room cannot enter it.”

“Sounds like you cannot see your girlfriend.”

“It’s just an example. Anyhow, a philosopher in ancient India, I thought his name was Nagarjuna, in Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, says something like this: Those who think that a running man has the function of running are obsessed with an wrong idea that, since a running man runs, he doesn’t have the function of running, and yet a running man runs. How come it is possible that a man who doesn’t possess the working of running can run at all?”

“Sounds like philosophy.”

“It is, Mom. If you say you cannot do this and not do this at the same time, it’s the law of contradiction. And I’d like to say, if you say you cannot do this and do this at the same time, it’s the law of Nagarjuna.”

“That’s not a good name.”

“Then, let’s call it the law of one subject and one action, or predicate.”

“One subject and one predicate?”

“Yeah. Logically, as I said before, as a dead man cannot be dead, and a man entering a room cannot enter it, so a man running now cannot be running. It’s because you assign two predicates to one subject; in fact, it’s quite unreasonable that one man is dead and is dead, one man enters and enters, and one man runs and runs. One subject can have one predicate only. After all, you cannot bite two pieces of apple pie at a time with your tiny cute mouth.”

“Which means a girl biting one piece of apple pie cannot bite another at the same time?”

“Now you got it, Mom!”

“But I often find you eating McDonalds, drinking cokes, and playing videogames, all at one time!”

“There you go again, Mom. I’ve heard you say that more than once.”

“I’ve seen you eating, drinking and playing in the same instant, more than more than once!”

“Easy, easy, Mom. Don’t get upset. Mother and child must be one and the same, loving each other.”

“If you only deserve it.”

Here the son doubts whether the subject and the action is one, which can also lead to the denial of motion. The son goes on to say:

“So you’re not sure if we are really one. This question of oneness also applies to the proposition, a man running now is running.”

“The question of oneness?”

“Yes. You’re not sure whether the subject and the action, or the predicate, is one as one. Think back about the proposition, a man running now is running. If a man running now, the subject, is one and the same as is running, the action, or the predicate, then you don’t have to give the predicate; you only need give the subject, because the predicate is already embedded in the subject.”

“You…..”

“You what?”

“I don’t need to say the predicate, as you just said.”

“You wanted to say that I’m clever?”

“Far from it. You’re sort of nuts. You’re just turning off the track by your weird story.”

“Which means you don’t understand unless you’re given the predicate, the action. The subject and the action is not identical.”

“And they’re not different, either?”

“Exactly. If a man who is actually running now has nothing to do with is running, then it means that a running man, the subject, can run without the action of running, the predicate. It’s like you are running without your right and left foot moving by turns.”

“That must be a hard job.”

“And vice versa; if is running is nowhere near a man running now, it’s also like the action of running, the predicate, is realized without any body, the subject.”

“It’s you. You are always eating, drinking, and playing the videogames, never standing up or walking or running, as if you were without foot.”

“I do have my legs, mom! The conclusion is, the subject and the action is not one and the same or different. Then how come you can run?”

“You’re getting me upset. The more I hear you talk, the more I think I’ll be irritated.”

“Let’s be rational and reasonable, Mom.”

Lastly, the son asserts, there’s no such thing as now; therefore, one cannot run now. The son continues:

“By the way, what time is it now?”

“What are you up to? Well, it’s 1:30.”

“More precisely, what time is it now?”

“1:30:20.”

“More precisely, please.”

“Maybe it’s 1:30:20.135.”

“And more precisely?”

“Maybe no more. It’s such a bother”

“You’re right. You’ll get to the point of time where there’s no more.”

“No more?”

“No more. Which means there’s no infinite regression. The regression is finite; you go into the narrower and narrower space of time, until at last you find yourself where there’s no space of time. Nothingness.”

“So?”

“So what you call now merges either into the future or into the past. There’s no now; now is destined to be divided into nothingness. Since there’s no now, there’s no chance that a man running now is running.”

“Seems that goes against Zeno.”

“You said it, Mom! Zeno falls into an infinite regression, Nagarjuna’s regression being a finite one.”

“Well, I prefer Zeno to Nagarjuna. It’s because Zeno makes you run and run, while Nagarjuna stops you running. Oh, I’m getting more and more and more angrier.”

“Mom, your grammar is mistaken. You’re beside yourself.”

“It’s because of YOU! Go get running! Right now!!”

“No, I told you many times that you cannot run!!”
Then he rises to his feet, and gets out of her sight, running away, maybe for fear of being hit and kicked by Mom.

“Yes, you can,” Mom murmurs, with a sigh.