52

46

you can put the argument that makes the testimony of fact
absurd,—that makes it absurd that Achilles should overtake
the tortoise,—for that is the same thing. They are unable to
do that. Then we say do you mean to say that the real Achilles
will not overtake the real tortoise as a fact? No, they admit
that he will. So then, we say, we and all mathematicians,
who are the only exact reasoners see no absurdity at all
in this. But you have an inscrutable logic which cannot
be reduced to any principle, which requires you from true premisses
to insist upon what you yourselves admit to be a
false conclusion. What is logic for, if not to prevent the
passage from true premisses to false conclusions? To this,
they have nothing to say, but they go their way still insisting
that it is absurd that Achilles should overtake the
tortoise. "Absurd" we call after them in a [??]