Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aristotle's Physics distinguishes self-movers from things moved by their nature: heavy objects fall by external actualizing conditions, not internal agency.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Heaviness itself is an intrinsic property that constitutes an internal nature directing downward motion, not merely external actualization.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aristotle's own definition of nature as internal principle of motion applies equally to heavy objects' tendency toward their natural place.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The distinction between self-movers and natural movers may be gradational rather than categorical, undermining the sharp division claimed here.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Aristotle distinguishes potentiality from actuality; heavy objects have potential to fall but need actualizing conditions like absence of support.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Self-movers like animals possess internal principles of motion (soul); falling rocks lack such internal organizing principles by contrast.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural motion toward place requires external context (the natural place itself exists externally); thus cannot be purely internal agency.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42