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 Bodies in motion will remain in motion and bodies at rest will remain at rest, without need of external explanation.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.For Aristotle, rest is not a state requiring explanation only when it is the natural place of a body, not as a universal default condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Violent motion and rest away from natural place require continuous causal sustenance, so persistence of non-natural states demands ongoing external explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Cartesian claim illicitly universalizes a principle that holds only for bodies already in their natural place, smuggling in a non-Aristotelian ontology of place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz argues that mere extension cannot ground force, so a body's persisting motion requires an inherent active principle (vis viva), not mere inertial continuation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If inertia is the only explanation for persistence, then dead matter sustains itself, which contradicts the occasionalist implication that God must continuously conserve all states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descartes himself relies on divine conservation to underwrite persistence, making the claim dependent on theological premises rather than a purely mechanistic principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rest and motion are opposite or contrary states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.According to the Scholastic principle, opposite states cannot transform into one another by their own nature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, a body cannot move toward its opposite state (rest or motion) by virtue of its own nature.
      ?

      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.