Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A minimal and partless body could never be in motion

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Motion can be reconceived as discrete positional succession: a body occupies space S1 at t1 and space S2 at t2 with no intermediate state required.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.P2 illicitly assumes continuous transition, but ancient atomists like Epicurus and modern discrete-space theorists deny that motion requires any 'in-between' occupancy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If motion just is a series of discrete positional facts, a partless body moves by being wholly at S1 then wholly at S2, never requiring partial occupancy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument conflates the absence of spatial parts with the impossibility of relational change, but a partless entity can still stand in different spatial relations at different times.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle's own account in Physics VI distinguishes between a thing's internal divisibility and its capacity to traverse divisible magnitudes, allowing indivisibles to move across divisible paths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A minimal and partless body always exactly fills the minimal space that it occupies
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For a body to transition from one space to an adjacent space, the body must be partly in and partly not in the original space during the transition
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A body with no parts cannot be 'partly' in anything
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.