Seite - 81 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

the sense that they no longer stand in the same relation to the other parts. The inner spatial order of the different parts changes in virtue of the whole undergoing a change in quantity—after all, this is exactly what growth and diminution are about. This, however, is the crucial difference between something that undergoes growth and diminution and something that undergoes a change in place as a whole, i.e. locomotion: all of the latter’s parts change in place but nevertheless their inner spatial order and their relation to each other remain exactly the same. In this sense, for x to change in place as a whole means that all of its parts must change in place while remaining in the same inner spatial order, so to speak. In merely undergoing locomotion, a given part of the revolving sphere will always remain in the same relation to the other parts of the sphere. This is the reason why the sphere remains in a place of equal size, although all of its parts are changing in place, and why Aristotle contrasted this example with something that undergoes growth that does not change in place as a whole, but only with respect to its parts. The sphere retains its inner structure and the relation of its parts. This, however, is not only the case for the revolving sphere, but also for any other object that in under- going one single motion changes from place A to B as a whole. Suppose I move a pen that I am holding in my hand from left to right in one perfect rectilinear motion: each part of it moves from its former to its new equal- sized place without changing its relation to any of the other parts, i.e. the pen changes in place as a whole. Since with growth and diminution the situation is essentially different, Aristotle is correct to claim that both in a sense are kinds of change in place, though only insofar as the parts of their respective subjects move. 4.2.4 A possible objection But is it really adequate to say that when x undergoes locomotion, the rela- tion of its parts always remains the same? There are many cases in which something undergoes a change in place as a whole, yet at the very same time its parts nonetheless change their relation to each other, and therefore seem to show that my interpretation must be wrong. The following case for instance appears to provide just such a counterexample. Suppose I walk from my office to the cafeteria to get a cup of tea. I do so by moving my legs. In the process of walking, however, the relation between my body’s parts does of course change, although I certainly undergo a change in place as a whole and not only with respect to some of my parts! I do not think that this is a problem for the interpretation of change in place as a whole that I have presented and the claims connected to it. There- fore, I will now discuss two strategies that might enable one to provide an What changes in quantity changes with respect to place 81 ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen