be in motion or at rest.” He continued setting out this approach to its conclusion.

He then said:

“Both this approach and its exposition are open to question. One may argue as follows: either motion means occupying a spatial location after having occupied another location, and rest means occupying a spatial location after having already been in that same location, or they do not mean this.

“If the former, the claim that these are the only two possibilities is invalidated by a body at the first instant of its coming into existence. It is not in motion, since it does not occupy a location after having been in another location; nor is it at rest, since it does not occupy a location after having already been there. If the latter, the argument offered to establish that rest has positive existence is invalidated. There is no escaping this.

“If it is said, ‘The discussion concerns only the body at the second instant, and at the second instant a body cannot be devoid of both motion and rest according to the aforementioned definition,’ this is plainly untenable. For if the discussion concerns the body only at the moment