Page - 80 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
Image of the Page - 80 -
Text of the Page - 80 -
For Aristotle the crucial difference seems to be that the parts of the
sphere always change “in a place of equal size” (ἐν τῷ ἴσῳ τόπῳ) while the
parts of what undergoes growth or diminution change to a larger or a smal-
ler place, as by growing or diminishing they become larger or smaller.22 But
in what way is this a reason for saying that the parts of the sphere form a
whole with respect to their change in place, while the parts of the growing
infant do not do so? In fact, one might argue that this confrontation of the
two cases shows that growth and diminution are changes in place to a
higher degree than the revolving sphere, for the place which the subject of
the former occupies changes, while one might argue that the sphere’s place
does not change at all—indeed objections of this kind were uttered against
Aristotle’s claim that the revolving sphere undergoes a locomotion in the
full sense.23
But let us return to our question. In what way is our argument supported
by the fact that each part of the revolving sphere always changes to a place
of equal size, while each part of that which changes in size changes to a
smaller or greater place? It seems to me that an answer to this question will
lead us to a criterion for distinguishing between a change in place as a
whole and one with respect to its parts. Yet, in what way might this differ-
ence be responsible for saying that something x undergoes one and not the
other of the two ways of changing in place?
Contrary to what interpreters of this passage say, I would argue that the
function of contrasting the two cases is to show that the inner spatial order
between the parts of the sphere, and of what undergoes locomotion as a
whole, does not change in any way, while the relation between the parts of
that which grows necessarily changes, if the space that is occupied by the
parts, and hence the whole, expands.24 Even if the proportions of that which
is growing remain exactly the same throughout the whole change, the spa-
tial relation of its parts changes. The distance between the infant’s hands for
instance increases when the infant grows as a whole, so that the spatial rela-
tion or order between the two hands changes. In growing, the parts of the
body come to occupy another location in the whole to which they belong in
22 τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἴσῳ τόπῳ μεταβάλλει τοῦ ὅλου μένοντος, τὰ δὲ τοῦ αὐξανο-
μένου ἀεὶ ἐπὶ πλείω τόπον, ἐπ᾽ ἐλάττω δὲ τὰ τοῦ φθίνοντος, GC I 5, 320a22–25.
23 See Phys. VI 9.
24 Averroes and Joachim take this comparison to show that the change in place the grow-
ing thing undergoes is different from circular locomotion. According to their reading Aristo-
tle operates in two steps: (1) he argues that the change in place of that which grows is different
from rectilinear locomotion, then (2) that it also differs from circular locomotion (see Aver-
roes, Middle Commentary, p.28), Joachim (1922), 112). Yet, this reading does not explain
why for instance the problematic case I have presented does not count as a change in place as
a whole, while, as I will show, my reading does.
80 Locomotion necessarily accompanies each of the other kinds of change
ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060
© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
- Title
- The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
- Author
- Sebastian Odzuck
- Editor
- Dorothea Frede
- Gisela Striker
- Publisher
- Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co
- Date
- 2014
- Language
- English
- License
- CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
- ISBN
- 9783647253060
- Size
- 15.5 x 23.2 cm
- Pages
- 238
- Categories
- Geisteswissenschaften
- Naturwissenschaften Physik
Table of contents
- 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