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 The absolute terms of Aristotelian proportionality do not apply to violent motion.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The moving power is subject to time and distance factors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The mobile body can offer almost no resistance in violent motion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Proportionality rules presuppose conditions that violent motion does not satisfy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's proportionality rules (Physics VII.5) require a resistant medium as the causal denominator against which motive force is measured.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In violent motion, the external mover supplants the body's natural tendency, dissolving the internal resistance that grounds proportional calculation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without internal resistance as a stable denominator, the ratio F/R becomes mathematically degenerate, making Aristotelian proportion inapplicable by its own formal conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ibn Bajja's analysis of motion in void shows that proportionality collapses when resistance approaches zero, yielding infinite speed—a reductio of the formula itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Violent motion approaches the void-condition structurally: the mobile offers no natural countervailing power, so resistance is contingent and extrinsic, not intrinsic to the body.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Avempace's conclusion that natural and violent motion belong to categorically distinct causal regimes entails that a single proportionality schema cannot govern both without equivocation.
      ?

      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.