There is no paradox — it's bull shit.
One doesn’t reach a goal by planning to achieve it in increments requiring calculus to determine the area-under-the-curve distance traveled (exaggerating to make a point). This is why your students hate philosophy —designing unresolvable arguments that require rejecting the framework for resolution is a waste of time and gives valuable philosophical thought a bad name. My friend, you know that a philosophical discussion worth having can be won when the opposing thinker has no basis in reality, while the most rewarding conversations are between two people with high IQ and EQ, who accept that there is no right answer but that the conversation is rewarding to both, (hi Britni Pepper) which is the point the great Anthi Psomiadou makes writing
"To me, the purpose is for all three of us to win; me, him, and the topic we discuss."
