To see the absurdity of the second paradox of relativity is easier than to refute it.
It thus affirmed the relativity of good and evil in a double sense; good and evil, for any individual citizen, may from one point of view be defined as the objects respectively of his desire and his aversion; from another, they may be said to be determined for him by his sovereign.
I do remember some theories concerning relativity suggesting some sort of motion in space might allow time travel if space-time geometrics are possible.
In the history of thought the relativity of knowledge as just described begins with Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy: the characteristic of modern philosophy is that it lays more stress upon the subjective than upon the objective side of experience.
The intuitive into the a priori, he found a further reason for the relativity of knowledge.
Similarly it only carried the doctrine of relativity to its logical conclusion in denying that there could be any absolute relativity.
It is indeed difficult to understand how so acute a thinker should confound that which is infinitely divisible with that which is infinitely great, as in (I), (2), (5), and (6); that he should identify space and 'magnitude, as in (3); that he should neglect the imperfection of the organs of sense, as in (4); that he should deny the reality of motion, as in (7); and that he should ignore the relativity of speed, as in (8): and of late years it has been thought that the conventional statements of the paradoxes, and in particular of those which are more definitely mathematical, namely (5), (6), (7), (8), do less than justice to Zeno's acumen.
But this doctrine of relativity really involves a condemnation of our knowledge (and of all knowledge), because it fails to realize an impossible and self-contradictory ideal.
What Schopenhauer professed, therefore, is to have dispelled the claims of reason to priority and to demonstrate the relativity and limitation of science.