First: Annia, Please do send us more of those paradoxes if you can find any :-)

Zeno most certainly tried to prove Parmenides's point: what we think about the "nature of things" is not what they really are. Trusting sense testimony and our conceptions (of time, movement, etc.) result in paradoxies. The only way Zeno conceived to solve the paradoxes is to deny both senses and our conceptions.

But on the other hand, I am not quite sure (have to think about this) if the solution was paradoxical in the first place. At least I am certain leaving one of these out would have solved it, for example:

(1) deny all sense testimony, but in this case it is possible there is movement in the "real" reality, or

(2) deny the "common sense" conceptions (that result into paradoxes) of the time (the Greek common sense was surely different from ours) and say that we have only invented paradoxical conceptions, but that even our senses testify against it, if we just use better reasoning, and we don't necessarily have to abandon the senses

Of course neither of these possibilities was what Zeno wanted to prove. But wouldn't they be sufficient? If we now today take one of Zeno's paradoxes seriously, and cannot solve it, doesn't it mean we have to opt for either of these two, or the Eleatic conception of reality (an eternal sphere without movement or change)?

What do you think? I'll have to think about this some more.