David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Apeiron 36 (4):311 - 326 (2003)
David Furley's work on the cosmologies of classical antiquity is structured around what he calls "two pictures of the world." The first picture, defended by both Plato and Aristotle, portrays the universe, or all that there is (to pan), as identical with our particular ordered world-system. Thus, the adherents of this view claim that the universe is finite and unique. The second system, defended by Leucippus and Democritus, portrays an infinite universe within which our particular kosmos is only one of countless kosmoi. Aristotle's argument in De caelo I.9 that the world is necessarily unique is an important contribution to this debate. This argument holds interest because it shows Aristotle wrestling with an apparent inconsistency in his own philosophy, as deeply-held convictions within his cosmology collide with an equally deeply-held conviction within his metaphysics. The following three principles, each of which Aristotle appears committed to, are inconsistent: -/- The cosmic uniqueness principle. The world is necessarily unique. The cosmic form principle. The world is an ordered, structured unity. As such, the world has a form. The possibility of multiple instantiation principle. For all F, if F is a form, it is possible that there exist multiple Fs. In De caelo I.9, Aristotle argues that we can establish the uniqueness of the universe, reject the multiple instantiation principle, yet still retain the distinction between 'this world' and 'world in general,' if the following is true (as it is): the world takes up all the matter that exists. Aristotle illustrates this argument with one of the stranger analogies in his corpus: imagine an aquiline nose that takes up all the flesh in the universe. If this were so, then there could not exist any other aquiline objects whatsoever. (For this reason, we dub the De caelo I.9 argument the 'Cosmic Nose argument.') This paper is an interpretation of how this argument is supposed to proceed and an assessment of its success. The first section states the problem Aristotle is confronted with, sorts through Aristotle's various statements of the Cosmic Nose argument, which exhibit some sloppiness, and reconstructs charitably a single argument. We also spend some time examining the significance of Aristotle's example of a gigantic aquiline nose. We argue that, even charitably reconstructed, the argument appears to commit a serious modal fallacy. The remainder of the paper explores whether this modal fallacy can be overcome. We conclude that, although not a cogent argument for the uniqueness of the world (as this would require a significant revision of our current astronomy), the Cosmic Nose argument does succeed on its own terms. However, it should not be regarded as a free-standing argument for the uniqueness of the world. Instead, it depends crucially on the earlier argument in De caelo I.8 for the universe's uniqueness; De caelo I.9 should be viewed as an attempt to extend the conclusion of De caelo I.8 and to show how this conclusion can be made consistent with Aristotle's metaphysical principles about the nature of form.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Mohan Matthen (2001). Holistic Presuppositions of Aristotle's Cosmology. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 20:171-199.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anna Marmodoro (2008). In Being One Only One? The Argument for the Uniqueness of the Platonic Forms. Apeiron (4):211-227.
Lisa Farooque (2008). About Celestial Circulation: Averroes' Tahafūt Al-Tahafūt and Aristotle's De Caelo. Journal of Islamic Philosophy 4:21-38.
Vladimir N. Dubrovsky (2008). The Laws of Philosophy. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 40:39-45.
Mohan Matthen (2009). Why Does Earth Move to the Center? An Examination of Some Explanatory Strategies in Aristotle's Cosmology. In Alan C. Bowen & Christian Wildberg (eds.), New Perspectives on Aristotle's De Caelo. Brill 1--119.
A. F. Mackay (2005). Aristotle's Dilemma. Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):533 - 549.
Josh Parsons (1999). There is No 'Truthmaker' Argument Against Nominalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77 (3):325 – 334.
David S. Oderberg (2011). Morality, Religion, and Cosmic Justice. Philosophical Investigations 34 (2):189-213.
Mariska Leunissen (forthcoming). Surrogate Principles and the Natural Order of Exposition in Aristotle’s De Caelo II. In R. Polansky & W. Wians (eds.), Reading Aristotle: Argument and Exposition in the Corpus Aristotelicum.
J. Wilberding (2005). " Creeping Spatiality": The Location of Nous in Plotinus' Universe. Phronesis 50 (4):315 - 334.
Wilberding (2005). "Creeping Spatiality": The Location of Nous in Plotinus' Universe. Phronesis 50 (4):315-334.
Sean Kelsey (2008). The Place of I 7 in the Argument of "Physics" I. Phronesis 53 (2):180 - 208.
Stephen Makin (1999). Aristotle's Two Modal Theses Again. Phronesis 44 (2):114 - 126.
Stephen Makin (1999). Aristotle's Two Modal Theses Again. Phronesis 44 (2):114-126.
Susan Haack (1974). On a Theological Argument for Fatalism. Philosophical Quarterly 24 (95):156-159.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads261 ( #9,084 of 1,907,521 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #464,819 of 1,907,521 )
How can I increase my downloads?