THE DIVISIBILITY OF MOTION AND REST – TOWARDS DETERMINING THE EFFICIENT CAUSE
THE DIVISIBILITY OF MOTION AND REST –
TOWARDS DETERMINING THE EFFICIENT CAUSE
Aristotle teaches that Motion is divided
according to the motion of the parts of the mobile object. But the beginning
and end of motion are not divisible. Just as motion is continuous and
divisible, so rest is continuous and divisible.
Things that are composed of parts have
extremities that are one or together According to Aristotle. Thus, those
extremities that are one are called
continuous (continuum) while those that touch themselves without being in
constant movement are contiguous.
Continuous things are those things which are composed of points which do touch
one another, continues in motion or rest and do not break. Consequently, motion
is continuous.
Aristotle encourages in continuous things,
there will always be the existence of two points, the first point where the
thing moved from to where it is moving or moved to. (terminus ad quo and
terminus ad quem). Since there are two points for a moving object, it follows
that there will be difference in position and time for continuous things where
the change in position is associated with magnitude. However, since magnitude
and motion are correlated, he opines that magnitude is divisible because of the
difference in positions for a moving or moved object. He thereby added that
motion is divisible since magnitude is divisible.
As motion has been described as a
continuum, can we predicate of it as being divisible? Responding to the question on the
divisibility of motion Aristotle argues that it is divisible. If motion as a continuum is divisible, what
makes it divisible? This shall be our aim in this paper.
Moreover, as it has already been
established that time is considered as before, now and future and ‘now’ as that
which terminates the past and begins the future which is not contiguous but
continuous since time is not an aggregate of indivisible ‘nows’. A particular
‘now’ is indivisible and therefore has no motion. Does it then means that there
is no motion in time since time is considered in the ‘now’ which is already
past? He answers that considering that there is difference in the ‘now’ and a
former ‘now’, then the time between the two ‘nows’ are divisible. Motion
resides at this time between the two ‘nows’. Motion is accordingly divided to
time since there is difference in time and less motion in less time and vice
versa. Therefore, since time is continuous and divisible, motion is also
continuous and divisible according to him.
REFERENCE
1. R. P.
Hardie & R. K. Gaye, Aristotle’s
physics.
2. Joseph
Kenny, Philosophy of Nature.
Comments
Post a Comment