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
    Treating motion and body as equally fundamental rather th... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Treating motion and body as equally fundamental rather than deriving one from the other cannot fully resolve the circularity in Descartes' definitions.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Descartes' own definitions are mutually implicating: body is defined via impenetrability, which presupposes resistance to displacement, which presupposes motion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A mode that is necessary for individuating its substance cannot be ontologically subordinate to it without collapsing the distinction between substance and mode.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This structural co-dependence mirrors what Aristotle identified as pros hen equivocity, where neither term is intelligible without the other, precluding any asymmetric grounding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Even granting the mode-substance hierarchy, Descartes defines extension itself through parts capable of relative displacement, smuggling motion back into the definition of extension (Pr II 25).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When the definiendum of extension covertly invokes motion, the ontological priority of extension over motion becomes circular rather than foundational, as Garber argues in 'Descartes' Metaphysical Physics'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Descartes explicitly deems motion to be a 'mode' of extension, which is a lesser ontological category than extension itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A mode is a way that extension manifests itself, or a property of extension (Pr I 53).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If motion is ontologically subordinate to extension, then motion and body cannot be treated as equally fundamental notions.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    A mode is a way that extension manifests itself, or a property of extension (Pr ...A mode that is necessary for individuating its substance cannot be ontologically...Descartes explicitly deems motion to be a 'mode' of extension, which is a lesser...Descartes' own definitions are mutually implicating: body is defined via impenet...
    +4 moreShow less
    Even granting the mode-substance hierarchy, Descartes defines extension itself t...If motion is ontologically subordinate to extension, then motion and body cannot...This structural co-dependence mirrors what Aristotle identified as pros hen equi...When the definiendum of extension covertly invokes motion, the ontological prior...

    Similar

    Defining motion in terms of bodies, and then defining bodies in terms ...88%Descartes' definitions of motion and body are circular and threaten th...87%If motion is ontologically subordinate to extension, then motion and b...83%Descartes defines motion as the transference of a body from the surrou...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: descartes-physics
    View source passageHide passage
    Nevertheless, Descartes’ hypothesis of motion may sanction a species of relative motion, since his phrase, “considered at rest”, implies that the choice of which bodies are at rest or in motion is purely arbitrary. According to the “relational” theory (or at least the more strict versions of relationism), space, time, and motion are just relations among bodies, and not separately existing entities or properties that are in any way independent of material bodies. Motion only exists as a “relative
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit