Seite - 83 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
Bild der Seite - 83 -
Text der Seite - 83 -
A to B changes, and hence the claim that locomotion basically does not
entail any change of the inner spatial order of the subject’s parts must be
wrong. Yet, it seems that analysing what appears to be one locomotion into
several locomotions might help us out of this impasse, for then, one might
think, it will turn out that what was supposed to be a single locomotion
from A to B actually consists of several locomotions, each of which taken
by itself does not lead to a change in the inner spatial order of the subject’s
parts. But, as I will now show, the same case that was made with respect to
my walking from A to B may be made with respect to the subjects of the
changes into which my walking can be analysed, so that a more precise ana-
lysis of the change is no solution to the problem.
It is certainly correct that one needs to be clear in specifying the subject
of each specific kind of change in place. As we have seen, this means for my
locomotion from A to B that what seems to be one change in place must in
fact be considered as (at least) three different changes in place, namely those
of my two legs and that of my whole body. But this does not solve the pro-
blem, since the same argument that was made with respect to my locomo-
tion from A to B, namely that it involves a change in the spatial order of my
inner parts, may be made with respect to my right or left leg. For when I, as
a human being that walks on two legs, change from place A to place B by
walking, a change occurs not only in the relation between my legs and the
other parts of the body, but also between the different parts of each leg: with
respect to the left leg, for instance, the relation between the foot, the lower
leg, and the thigh certainly changes. Granted, this might be solved by ana-
lysing the motion of the leg itself into different changes, say into the change
in place of my thigh, of the lower left leg, as well as that of the foot; after all,
the reason why we have joints is that in the process of walking the relation
of the different parts of the leg should change. But this analysis also fails to
solve the problem, since with respect to at least one of these three subjects
of change, namely the foot, the same case may be made again: in stepping
on the ground my foot deforms in such a way that its inner spatial order
also changes; with respect to the other two parts of the leg one could add
that even in this case muscles contract and sinews are stretched so that the
order of their inner spatial parts does change in some respect. Again, one
might be tempted to think that this problem may be solved simply by divid-
ing the subject into the actual subjects of different changes until one finally
arrives at a number of subjects, in our example the parts of a human body,
with respect to which one might rightly say that the inner spatial order of
each of these subjects does not change in any way. This, however, will never
be the case, since it would presuppose that the continuous whole of the
body (or of any other subject) could be divided into parts which are not
further divisible into parts that can change their spatial relation to each
other. This, however, as is well known, is impossible for Aristotle, as it pre-
What changes in quantity changes with respect to place 83
ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060
© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
- Titel
- The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
- Autor
- Sebastian Odzuck
- Herausgeber
- Dorothea Frede
- Gisela Striker
- Verlag
- Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co
- Datum
- 2014
- Sprache
- englisch
- Lizenz
- CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
- ISBN
- 9783647253060
- Abmessungen
- 15.5 x 23.2 cm
- Seiten
- 238
- Kategorien
- Geisteswissenschaften
- Naturwissenschaften Physik
Inhaltsverzeichnis
- Acknowledgements 9
- 1. Introduction 10
- 2. The importance of the primary kind of change 14
- 3. Change in quality and quantity of living beings depends on loco-motion, but not vice versa 42
- 4. Locomotion necessarily accompanies each of the other kinds of change, but not vice versa 71
- 4.1 Overview 71
- 4.2 What changes in quantity changes with respect to place 73
- 4.3 What undergoes generation or corruption changes with respect to place 89
- 4.4 What changes in quality changes with respect to place 98
- 4.4.1 Overview 98
- 4.4.2 What does it mean that condensation and rarefaction are principles of quality? 100
- 4.4.3 Every alteration involves a change in the four basic qualities 104
- 4.4.4 Every change in the four basic qualities involves con- densation or rarefaction 108
- 4.4.5 Condensation and rarefaction are forms of aggregation and segregation 110
- 4.4.6 What changes in quality changes with respect to place 112
- 4.4.7 Conclusion 113
- 4.5 Conclusion 113
- 5. All changes depend on the first locomotion, but not vice versa 115
- 6. Locomotion has temporal priority 144
- 6.1 Overview 144
- 6.2 Locomotion has priority in time, since it is the only change eternals can undergo 146
- 6.3 Objection: Locomotion is the last of all changes in perishable things 148
- 6.4 Coming to be presupposes an earlier locomotion 150
- 6.5 The locomotion of the sun as a cause of generation 154
- 6.6 Conclusion 162
- 7. Locomotion is prior in essence 164
- 7.1 Locomotion is prior in essence, since it is last in coming to be 164
- 7.2 Locomotion alone preserves its subject’s essence 186
- 7.2.1 Overview 186
- 7.2.2 Locomotion does not change its subject’s being 188
- 7.2.3 Locomotion preserves its subject’s essence best 190
- 7.2.4 Making x depart from its essence by being part of a change in essence? 195
- 7.2.5 Change in quality or quantity in principle may result in a change in essence 202
- 7.3 Conclusion: Locomotion’s priority in essence 207
- 8. Conclusion 211
- Bibliography 220
- List of Abbreviations 223
- Index Locorum 221
- Index Nominum 223
- Index Rerum 221