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 Descartes' definitions of motion and body are circular and threaten the entire edifice of Cartesian physics.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Descartes defines motion as the transference of a body from the surrounding neighborhood of contiguous bodies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes then defines body as everything which is simultaneously transported (i.e., moves).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Defining motion in terms of bodies, and then defining bodies in terms of motion, results in a circular definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes' Principles II.25 defines motion as transference relative to contiguous bodies, making 'body' a primitive term in the definiens.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Descartes' Principles II.34 then identifies bodies as individuated precisely by their common motion, making 'motion' the primitive term for body.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When each term in a definitional pair derives its content solely from the other, neither term gains independent semantic grounding, producing genuine circularity per Aristotle's Posterior Analytics I.3.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz explicitly identified this circularity in his 'Critical Thoughts on Descartes' Principles,' arguing that Cartesian motion lacks a privileged reference frame and thus real physical content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without an independent criterion distinguishing which body is 'truly' moving, Cartesian physics cannot adjudicate between kinematically equivalent descriptions, undermining its explanatory ambitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A definitional system that fails to determine which descriptions are physically privileged cannot ground the causal laws Descartes derives in Principles II.36–53.
      ?

      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.