Aristotle's Explanation Of Motion

Aristotle and Dante discover the secrets of the universe by Benjamin Alire Saenz an amazing book that has won four awards. Yet it has a simple plot a Young-adult fiction coming of age novel of two unalike teenagers that become friends and their adventures from there on(goodreads). Though it much more than that it hits themes such as friendship, family, self-love and acceptance. Although it is targeted to young adults anyone can fall in love with this story.

Therefore natural substances are capable of motion i.e. growing, gaining qualities, losing them and lastly being born and dying. In Book II of Physics and Parts of Animals Book 1, Aristotle goes on to contrast natural substances with artefacts, he states these are also capable of motion, but they move according to what they are made out of, he gives

Without a first mover there can be no motions, this is Aquinas’ third arguments as to god existing through motion. Nothing can move itself. In other words, if you take away something that can actually be moved then you’re also taking away anything that can potentially be moved. For example, there is no milk without a cow. “the reason a student has the potential to be awake is that he had (actual) toast for breakfast. Toast has the potential to keep the student awake. But (actual) bread has the potential to become toast, and actual grain has the potential to become bread. Actual water, dirt, and air have the potential to become grain. To take away any of these actualities is ultimately to take away the potential for the student to be alert”

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics argues that as humans we are responsible for our character and appearance. While we are all aiming at one thing, happiness, he is trying to prove that every action we take, voluntary or involuntary will lead to an apparent good and in order to be happy, we have to live a virtuous life. I will argue that voluntary and involuntary actions, virtue and freedom have significance to how our character grows and in some part make us responsible for our appearance.

Aristotle questions what the function of man is; he concludes that it must be something that is specific to human beings. Aristotle uses function to define a species; each species has a different function that they’re defined by because of this humans function cannot be breathing because animals also breathe. He relieves that only humans have reason, explaining this with the use of a drawing of the soul (which to

Act and potency are distinct from one another. This distinction is fundamental to Scholastic philosophy. Specifically, the distinction between act and potency is a real distinction which is differences reflected in extra-mental reality

Aristotle imagines an infinitely vast and eternally complicated universe, all under the control of a divine being. He states that the reason for the universe must be love because if God did not desire the universe, He would not allow the universe to exist. Through further observation, Aristotle then claims that a change must be caused to change. It is through these changes that all physical entities appear only temporarily. He then claims that there are four fundamental principles that describe all causes.

Lastly in terms of his understanding of causation, the final cause of a thing or object was its purpose (telos). The purpose of the statue is aesthetic in that it is admired; the purpose of my laptop is to help me do my work well. Aristotle uses the example of health being the cause of walking, 'Why does one walk?' he asks, 'that one may be healthy'. This is perhaps the most important of all the causes. Yet his understanding does not end here. Once something has achieved a state of actuality it is also in a state of potentiality. In this sense we can see that Aristotle saw that the universe was moving constantly between ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ back to ‘potentiality’ once again. This idea required Aristotle to explain things further still because in order for this theory to work it must explain everything in the universe, including the universe itself.

In Book III Chapter one of The Nicomachean Ethnics, Aristotle has his explanation of the meaning of the voluntary act and involuntary act. He thinks the criterion for judging whether a man should be held accountable for one of his actions was whether he had acted voluntarily.

Aristotle’s view about nature is said to be teleological, but before delving into the specifics it is important to know what teleology is and how it can be applied to nature. Teleology is the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes. In addition, telos- means an end, which Aristotle incorporates in his view of nature. This teleological view of nature is broken down into three categories in Physics II of the book we have been reading in class: nature as matter and as form, cause and chance, and final causes and necessity in nature. Aristotle’s concluding statements in these works show that nature itself is a cause and means for an end. Additionally, this teleological view of nature is still hinted

According to Aristotle, the mean is the “equal to” part, in between “greater than” and “less than”. A more context definition would be having enough so that you would not be either “excessive or deficient”. Each person have a different “mean” according to his/her standard. Aristotle gives us an example in his writing piece that ten pounds of food maybe enough for an athlete, but it would be too much for a trainer. As a knowledge person, you would be able to identify what is enough for you and choose the mean of it; a mean that personally related to you, not a mean of something. It is a guide to good living because it’s what guide your virtue, your character, your moral standard. If you can balance out your feelings and actions and not have

In general, humans have the ability to think through their decision and choose which course of action to take. On the conceptual level, it seems easy to determine voluntary from involuntary acts. However, in real world decisions, some of the distinctions between the two are not as clear and the type of action is blurred. In this paper, I will defend Aristotle view’s on the grey, or “mixed,” areas of voluntary and involuntary actions.

The other type of being acted upon that Aristotle describes is different because the potential once actualized is not destroyed. However, the potentiality is preserved through its actualization. Once you know French, you have the potential to use it. The

For Aristotle 'nearby movement is the essential kind of movement and the essential sort of movement is roundabout movement ' For Aristotle this implies everything is moving, and the best type of development is development in a round movement in light of the fact that a circle is the ideal type of development. It has no starting and no end, it is consistent and everlasting. Aristotle saw this movement in everything, even the human presence is that of a cycle. We are conceived, recreate and pass on, in a nonstop presence pretty much as the eminent bodies start at one point and move around until they are toward the starting point once more. Aristotle expressed his point as the accompanying:

Only man can have a purpose because human has intellectual mind and they are intelligent enough to give itself a purpose. This theory is greatly in conflicts with the Causation theory and to many it seems like a lot more realistic and sound, as if something was to have a purpose it must have been assigned that purpose by a greater power. To Aristotle, the greater power is the Prime Mover, but he does not even know of our existence, so he certainly did not give us a purpose. If he did not about our existence, so what did? Aristotle combats this by saying it is how the Prime Mover is so perfect we a drawn to wanting to be like him as everything wants to be perfect, therefore the Prime Mover is everything’s final cause. This too seems like a valid explanation against Existentialists, showing a good type of idea in his teachings. Aristotle’s never describes the link between us and the Prime Mover. How do we know of his existence in the first place, and do we really feel drawn to be like him? It also implies that all inanimate objects somehow have a desire to be perfect, which can seem absurd. Aristotle’s causation theory provides an accurate account of observation but the Final Cause appears unreliable in describing how absolutely everything has a