Do Zeno\u27s Arguments Challenge Aristotle\u27s Account of Motion?

What is the relationship between the arguments that Aristotle and Simplicius attribute to Zeno of Elea, and the account of motion that Aristotle presents in the Physics? Do the considerations that Aristotle raises in Physics Z.9 overcome the arguments about motion that he attributes to Zeno? Do they show the Zenonian arguments to be inapplicable or ill formed? Or do considerations that Zeno raises in the discussions attributed to him instead undermine Aristotle\u27s account of motion? Do they undermine the possibility of physics as epistëmë? And why does Aristotle not treat Zeno\u27s arguments about magnitude and plurality in his account of motion? After all, motion involves distances and multiple positions and times. What is at stake here is phusikë as epistëmë: If it can be shown that his conception of motion is incoherent or self-contradictory, then there is for Aristotle small prospect of a science of physics, an account of phusis through its archai. If it can be shown that problems of the sort Zeno raised with respect to plurality and magnitude will surface in the account of motion that Aristotle proposes, then we shall need to ask whether or to what extent this undermines the possibility of an epistëmë of phusis

Risk discourse in art therapy: Revisiting Neil Springham's Inscape

In view of an increasing emphasis on risk management in the therapy professions, this paper reconsiders Neil Springham's (2008) Inscape paper, 'Through the eyes of the law: What is it about art that can harm people?'. The author asks how the simultaneously individualising and totalising tendencies of risk discourse might shape our relationships with our clients, each other and ourselves. She notes that many of her colleagues have commended Springham's focus on the serious risks associated with the use of art in therapeutic contexts, and have read his work as an endorsement of their expertise. While acknowledging the salience of the problematisation of art and risk, the author suggests that it is important to question the implications of risk discourse for art therapy. She argues that Springham's paper can be seen as a performance of expert knowledge, rather than simply a description of events. The current paper problematises the politics of representation in Springham's paper, particularly the concept of co-authorship, and raises questions about the generalisation of his findings to the field of arts and health. The current paper also deconstructs the slippages between legal and therapeutic discourse in Springham's text, thereby disrupting what might otherwise become an incontrovertible truth