Aristotles and Lucretiuss Conception of Movement - Essay Example

Philosophy of Movement By Philosophy of Movement Aristotle’s Conception of Movement Aristotle defined motion as “being-at-work-staying itself of potency, as a potency”. Aristotle defined motion in this manner due to the nature of motion. Aristotle had realized that motion cannot be defined as an independent and distinct thing; motion is not in any genus or species. This is because motion cannot exist singly, distinctly, and independently of something else already in existence. When we talk of motion, it is always motion of something. Aristotle also was driven to define motion in this manner by the fact that motion is neither potency nor is it an act. This is because something that is in potency is passive, without any form of change taking place on it to render the potency into an act. On the other hand, movement cannot be conceived as an act because an act is an actualized potency, and therefore not subject to any change or any motion. Consequently, Aristotle conceived movement as “an act of a thing in potency”, i.e. “a being-at-work-staying itself of potency, as a potency”. Giving the example of “buildable” as potency, and the building or the house as the actualized potency of “buildable”, i.e. an act that results when the buildable potency is actualized, Aristotle explained what he meant by movement as being an act of a thing in potency. The ‘buildable” is a pure potency that is passive and not undergoing any change or motion, a building or a built house, on the other hand, is an act that has resulted from the potency of buildable having been actualized into an act. Neither of these two is a movement. However, the process through which the potency was rendered into an act was a movement. In the building of a house, the process itself, neither did we have either passive potency or passive act, what we had in the process was potency in act. In other words, a state of being that could not be regarded as pure potency or pure act; a state of being that is half potency, half act, i.e. an act of a thing in potency. This therefore was the Aristotle’s conception of movement. Ontological Primacy of Movement According to Aristotle In determining the ontological primacy of Movement or motion, Aristotle had to answer the question of what, among the three aspects of reality, i.e. potency, motion, and act, comes before the others. According to Aristotle, Movement is ontologically prior to an act. This is because, as we have seen in the Aristotle’s definition of movement, it is through movement that potency is rendered or actualized into an act. This therefore means that motion is ontologically prior to an act. Although movement, however, has an element of act because motion is a mid-way state between potency and act, motion, however, is ontologically prior to pure act. On the other hand, potency is ontologically prior to movement. This is because movement according to Aristotle comes about when a thing in potency is moved by another thing that is in act. There has to be a thing in potency therefore for there to be movement. This therefore means that potency is prior to motion. Aristotle conceived movement as inconceivable if all things were to be in pure act. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle talked of four types of movements or changes. These are movements or changes in substance, quality, quantity, and space. Substantial change refers to the change or the movement that leads to the complete change of the substance or the essence of something. For instance, when a piece of paper is burnt, the substance or the essence of the piece of paper is altered completely into something else. In other words, once a piece of paper is burnt, the paper will lose its substance and it will no longer be paper. On the other hand, quality change or movement refers to the change in the qualitative aspects of something. For instance, when a white board is painted black, the board undergoes a qualitative change or movement in colour. Quantitative change or movement on the other hand refers to the change in the quantity of something. For instance, when a piece of wood is chopped off, the wood undergoes quantitative change or movement because the piece of wood reduces in size. Lastly, the change in space or movement in space refers to the change of location by something. For instance, when a child kicks a ball, the ball changes its physical location. The most primary or important type of change or movement that Aristotle talks about is the substantial change. This is because substantial change of something leads to the loss of the substance or the essence of the thing. For example, just as we have seen, when a piece of paper is burnt, the piece of paper losses it essence or its substance, and it can no longer be referred to as paper. The second most important or primary movement or change is the quantitative change. This is because quantitative change leads to the reduction or increase in the physical size of something. The third most important change or movement is the qualitative change that leads only to the changes in the accidents of something. Finally, the least important change or movement is the change in space or place. Lucretius’s Conception of Movement According to Lucretius, movement is the change in a thing brought about by either the perpetual movement of the atoms of the thing, or by some external forces exerted on the thing. According to Lucretius, the physical reality is made up of primary indivisible elements known as the seeds of reality or the primal elements of reality. Although Lucretius did not use the term atom to define these primary elements of reality, a critical look at the Lucretius’s description of the seeds of reality or the primal elements of reality shows that, the primal elements of reality are what have come to be known as atoms in the modern world. Lucretius saw the atoms of things as being in a constant state of movement. According to him, the atoms of things are self-moved, i.e. the atoms that compose every physical reality have innate power that ceaselessly keeps them in motion. Lucretius argued that there are countless atoms of reality and that these atoms combine in different forms, forming different compounds. For Lucretius therefore, movement is a result of the movement of these primal elements of reality. When these primary elements of reality move constantly and collide with each other, and combine in different ways forming different compounds, the atoms cause motion or change. Lucretius also conceived movement as being caused by the external forces exerted on a thing. For instance, when a person is beaten by a blow by another person and falls down with the impact of the brow, the movement that result in this case is brought about by the external force of the brow exerted on the person who has been hit by the brow, and not by the internal movement of the primal elements of the person. According to Lucretius, movement is ontologically prior to any other physical reality. This is because for every physical reality to be formed there should be atoms or primal elements that combine with other atoms to form a compound. Such combination of the primal elements of reality to form a compound involves some movements. Again, as we have just seen, for Lucretius, atoms or the primal elements of reality are never in a passive state. The atoms of things are constantly in a state of motion. This fact again shows that movement is ontologically prior to any physically existing thing. For Lucretius, atoms are eternal and they are always in constant random state of movement in which they collide with each other within an element. According to Lucretius therefore, movement is ontologically prior to any compounded physical reality. Lucretius conceived two types of movements, i.e. internal movements of elements brought about by the perpetual movement of the atoms of things. This kind of movement accounts for the changes in the nature of things, whereby things change substantially from one thing to the other. For instance, when a piece of paper is burnt, the primal elements o f the piece of paper disintegrates and combines with other different primal elements to form a different compound that is substantially different from paper. The second type of movement according to Lucretius is the movement brought about by the external forces exerted on a thing. For instance, as we have seen in the Lucretius’ definition of movement, a brow from another person can make one to fall down, hence making some movement. The movement brought about by external forces accounts for the physical movements. A comparison between the Aristotle’s conception of movement and the Lucretius’ conception of movement shows that these two philosophers have quite different understandings of movement. To begin with, while Aristotle conceived movement as a mid-way state between potency and act, Lucretius conceived movement primarily as the consequence of the perpetual movements of the atoms of things. This fact clearly shows that these two scholars had a completely different Metaphysics. Aristotle’s Metaphysics was built around the concepts of act and potency and therefore he conceived movement in terms of potency and act. Lucretius’ metaphysics on the other hand was build around the notion of atoms or the primary elements of physical reality. For this reason, Lucretius conceived movement in terms of the movements of the primary elements of reality. However, although, these two scholars have basically different theories on movement, the philosophers are however agreed that movement is what makes something to change in the substance, the quality, the quantity, and the location/place. Also, these two scholars are agreed that external force or pressure on something can lead to movement in the thing. On the ontological primacy of movement, Aristotle and Lucretius also have different opinions. While Aristotle holds that movement is ontologically prior to act, but not to potency, Lucretius argue that movement is eternal, just as the primary elements of reality are eternal, and that every physical compound or reality is formed through the movement o the primary elements of reality or the atoms. A critical look at these views, however, shows that Aristotle and Lucretius are agreed that movement is ontologically prior to any compound reality. This is because, although Aristotle holds that potency is prior to movement, Aristotle however does not say that act is ontologically prior to movement. This fact therefore shows that Aristotle and Lucretius are actually agreed on the primacy of movement. On the types of movements, while Aristotle distinguishes four types of movements, Lucretius talks only of two types of movements. However, a critical look at the two categorizations of movements shows that Aristotle and Lucretius are actually agreed on the types of movements. This is because while Lucretius does not talk about the four types of movements or changes that Aristotle talks about, Lucretius however does not deny that all the four types of changes that Aristotle talks about are actually legitimate types of movements. Aristotle on the other hand does not deny that the two types of movements or changes that Lucretius talks about are legitimate types of changes. The only difference between these scholars on this issue, therefore, lies only in their different methods of classifying the different types of movements or changes, but not in their conceptions of movements or changes. References Aristotle Book III, Chapters 1-3: Motion. Class Notes Handout. Lucretius on the Nature of Movement. Class Notes Handout. Read More