  Aristotle’s discussion of the relation of motion and time in  Physics 6.8 prepares the way for his objection to the  Zenonian paradox of motion he mentions at the very beginning of  Physics 6.9: “Zeno reasons fallaciously; for he says  that if every thing always is resting whenever it is against what is  equal, and what moves is always in the now, then the moving arrow is  motionless” (Ph. 6.9, 239b5–7). Aristotle  remarks that Zeno relies on the false supposition that time is  composed of indivisible “nows” or instants  (b8–9), a point he soon repeats in identifying the  argument purporting to show that “the moving arrow is standing  still” as the third of Zeno’s paradoxes of motion  (b30–3). In his Life of Pyrrho, Diogenes Laertius reports, “Zeno abolishes motion, saying, ‘What moves  moves neither in the place it is nor in a place it is not”  (D.L. 9.72 = Zeno B4 DK; cf. Epiphanius, Against the  Heretics 3.11). This report, which Diels and Kranz took to  preserve a genuine fragment of Zeno’s book, appears to suggest how  the argument that the moving arrow is at rest may have figured as  part of a broader argument against motion. Diogenes, however, is not  a particularly good source for Zeno’s arguments: his Life of  Zeno notes only that he was the first to propound the  “Achilles” argument, along with many others (D.L. 9.29).  It is just as likely, therefore, that Diogenes’ report depends  on an intervening attempt to couch the paradoxes of motion reported  by Aristotle in the dilemmatic form Plato indicates was typical of  Zenonian argumentation.