Skip to main content

Galileo, Aristotle, velocity, disposition and the essence of movement

Galileo replaced concern with the nature of movement with concern with the measurable characteristics of movement (first of all, velocity). But when we say something moved so many miles/Km an hour, we are talking, in a sense about a kind of disposition. Not the sort of disposition to act that exists when something is inactive. But the disposition to continue to act a certain way. It seems to me that Galileo, in focusing on the measurement, took this disposition as a given, whereas Aristotle, in defining motion as the act of a potency as such, is much more interested in the nature of this disposition.

Comments

Unknown said…
So in other words, the motion of a ball is qualitatively distinct from the motion of a peacock, both of which would be qualitatively different from the motion of a walking human being?
3:11 PM
Leo White said…
Yes. I guess my point is that if you were to graph motion (with x as time and y as distance), you wouldn't notice anything other than velocity (or the lack thereof). Qualitative and other aspects of motion would be left out of consideration. Aristotle thought those non-quantitative aspects were the most important. Let's say that he underestimated the importance of the quantitative aspect of motion: he nevertheless had other interesting things to say about motion.
9:10 AM
Leo White said…
Oops: I meant to say that Aristotle might have underestimated the quantitative aspect of motion. Galileo, on the other hand, was oblivious to the qualitative.
6:18 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more