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 Moving intelligences of the Aristotelian tradition are not the cause of planetary motion.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Planetary motions are caused by natural, physically explicable forces (magnetism, inertia, solar rays).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Elliptical orbits are inconsistent with motion directed by spiritual or intelligent movers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kepler explicitly rejects Aristotelian moving intelligences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian moving intelligences require continuous volitional direction, but planetary orbits follow deterministic mathematical laws requiring no ongoing deliberation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kepler's *Astronomia Nova* demonstrates that orbital velocity varies inversely with solar distance, a purely quantitative relation unintelligible to a volition-based causal model.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An intelligence capable of producing ellipses would require knowledge of conic sections, making the mover redundant to the geometric structure itself as the explanatory primitive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ockham's razor demands that positing immaterial intelligences is explanatorily superfluous once anima motrix and solar virtus account for all observable planetary phenomena.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Leibniz's later critique of occult qualities applies retroactively: intelligences that act without specifiable mechanism introduce explanatory darkness rather than illumination.
      ?

      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.