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
    Descartes himself defines motion relationally in the Prin... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→An appeal to the ontological difference between motion and rest as intrinsic states can distinguish Descartes' fourth and fifth collision rules

    Descartes himself defines motion relationally in the Principles II.25 as translation relative to contiguous bodies, making 'intrinsic rest' incoherent within his own framework.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Descartes explicitly defines motion in Principles II.25 as change of place relative to adjacent bodies, not absolute displacement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If motion is purely relational, then 'intrinsic rest' (rest independent of surrounding bodies) becomes logically impossible within his system.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descartes' framework eliminates absolute space, making any state independent of relational context self-contradictory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Descartes distinguishes motion (defined relationally) from the actual state of a body, which can be intrinsically at rest regardless.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Calling a relational definition 'incoherent' conflates the criterion for measuring motion with metaphysical possibility of rest itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even in relational frameworks, 'at rest' can denote a non-moving state intrinsically, while motion measures change between reference frames.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    An appeal to the ontological difference between motion and rest as intrinsic sta...Calling a relational definition 'incoherent' conflates the criterion for measuri...Descartes distinguishes motion (defined relationally) from the actual state of a...Descartes explicitly defines motion in Principles II.25 as change of place relat...
    +3 moreShow less
    Descartes' framework eliminates absolute space, making any state independent of ...Even in relational frameworks, 'at rest' can denote a non-moving state intrinsic...If motion is purely relational, then 'intrinsic rest' (rest independent of surro...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit