Why Continuous Motions Cannot Be Composed of Sub-motions: Aristotle on Change, Rest, and Actual and Potential Middles

Apeiron 51 (1):37-71 (2018)

Authors
Caleb Cohoe
Metropolitan State University of Denver
Abstract
I examine the reasons Aristotle presents in Physics VIII 8 for denying a crucial assumption of Zeno’s dichotomy paradox: that every motion is composed of sub-motions. Aristotle claims that a unified motion is divisible into motions only in potentiality (δυνάμει). If it were actually divided at some point, the mobile would need to have arrived at and then have departed from this point, and that would require some interval of rest. Commentators have generally found Aristotle’s reasoning unconvincing. Against David Bostock and Richard Sorabji, inter alia, I argue that Aristotle offers a plausible and internally consistent response to Zeno. I defend Aristotle’s reasoning by using his discussion of what to say about the mobile at boundary instants, transitions between change and rest. There Aristotle articulates what I call the Changes are Open, Rests are Closed Rule: what is true of something at a boundary instant is what is true of it over the time of its rest. By contrast, predications true of something over its period of change are not true of the thing at either of the boundary instants of that change. I argue that this rule issues from Aristotle’s general understanding of change, as laid out in Phys. III. It also fits well with Phys. VI, where Aristotle maintains that there is a first boundary instant included in the time of rest, but not a “first in which the mobile began to change.” I then show how this rule underlies Aristotle’s argument that a continuous motion cannot be composed of actual sub-motions. Aristotle distinguishes potential middles, points passed through en route to a terminus, from actual middles. The Changes are Open, Rests are Closed Rule only applies to actual middles, because only they are boundaries of change that the mobile must arrive at and then depart from. On my reading, Aristotle argues that the instant of arrival, the first instant at which the mobile has come to be at the actual middle, cannot belong to the time of the subsequent motion. If it did, the mobile would already be moving towards the next terminus and thus, per Phys. VI 6, would have already left. But it cannot have moved away from the midpoint at the very same moment it has arrived there. This means that the instant of arrival must be separated from the time of departure by an interval of rest. I show how Aristotle’s reasoning applies generally to rule out any continuous reflexive motion or continuous complex rectilinear motion. On my interpretation, however, the argument does not apply to every change of direction. When, as in the case of projectile motion, multiple movers and their relative powers explain why the mobile changes directions, distinct sub-motions are not involved. Aristotle holds that such motions cannot be continuous, not because they involve intervals of rest, but because they involve multiple causes of motion. My interpretation of the Changes are Open, Rests are Closed Rule allows us to make better sense of Aristotle’s argument than any previous interpretation.
Keywords Aristotle  Zeno of Elea  continuity  limits  motion
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1515/apeiron-2016-0069
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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

Is There a Fundamental Level?Jonathan Schaffer - 2003 - Noûs 37 (3):498–517.
A Look at the Staccato Run.Jon Pérez Laraudogoitia - 2006 - Synthese 148 (2):433-441.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Modern Misunderstanding of Aristotle's Theory of Motion.Oded Balaban - 1995 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 26 (1):1 - 10.
Change in Aristotle's Physics 3.Andreas Anagnostopoulos - 2010 - Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 39:33-79.
Another Note on Zeno's Arrow.Ofra Magidor - 2008 - Phronesis 53 (4-5):359-372.
Aristotle, Dynamics and Proportionality.Andrew Gregory - 2001 - Early Science and Medicine 6 (1):1-21.
Aristotle's Theory of Time and Entropy.Richard E. Hughen - 1990 - Southwest Philosophy Review 6 (1):19-27.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-04-03

Total views
155 ( #43,428 of 2,328,402 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
52 ( #9,845 of 2,328,402 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature