A study of a group of elementary school students learning to control a computer‐implemented Newtonian object reveals a surprisingly uniform and detailed collection of strategies, at the core of which is a robust “Aristotelian” expectation that things should move in the direction they are last pushed. A protocol of an undergraduate dealing with the same situation shows a large overlap with the set of strategies used by the elementary school children and thus a marked lack of influence of classroom (...) physics training on this student's naive physics. The data from these two studies are pooled and elaborated into a “genetic task analysis” of how one might come to understand Newtonian dynamics as a more or less natural evolution from the naive state. (shrink)

ARISTOTLE IS UNIVERSALLY credited with inventing the concept of teleology: "nature is among the causes which act for the sake of something." "That for the sake of which" is a thing's purpose, its end, the goal at which it aims. Taking Aristotle's physics as a focal point for his philosophy of nature, I shall argue that teleology functions within his theory of nature not only substantively, but also procedurally. First, then, I shall explain what I mean by teleology as (...) procedure and then show how this procedure relates both to problems within physics and to Aristotle's conception of physics as a science. (shrink)

This paper shows how key aspects of Aristotle’s core concepts of matter and motion, some of which have recently been shown to help make sense of quantum mechanical indeterminacy, align with some important results of the energy-momentum relationship of special relativity. In this conception, mobility and indeterminacy are inherently linked to each other and to materiality. Applying these ideas to massless particles, which relativity tells us move at the maximal cosmic speed, allows us to draw the conclusion that they must (...) be the most basic physical bodies, that is, mobile substances. The most familiar massless particle, the photon, constitutes light. Furthermore, because the photon composes luminous matter but cannot be decomposed into anything else more basic, it fulfills the definition of element. (shrink)

Blasius of Parma deals with intensification and remission of accidental forms, and the related concept of « latitude » in at least three texts : the Questiones de latitudinibus formarum, the Questio disputata de intensione et remissione formarum and Question 10 on Book V of the Physics. The paper is focussed on the two last. Blasius discusses theses about the ontological status of qualities and their relation to their subject of inherence through the issue of their intensification or weakening, (...) at the borderline of physics and metaphysics. In the same time, he takes sides for the calculating procedures that were on debate since the beginning of the 14th century. In binding the quality and its subject closely together, Blasius does not go as far as the Oxford Calculators in the mathematisation of intensive magnitudes. Nonetheless, he does attempt to integrate the new tools into his physics and his ontology. (shrink)

This article takes as its point of departure the conviction that late medieval science should be studied in its own right, and not merely to determine whether it presaged developments in early modern science. Case in point: Francis of Marchia's theory of virtus derelicta, the theory that the motion of a projectile through the air is due to a force left behind by the original motive force. Certainly, Marchia's view is not a forerunner of inertia. Nevertheless, it is argued that (...) virtus derelicta breaks with two important Aristotelian principles of motion: "everything that has a beginning must necessarily also have an end" and "form is always indivisible." Thus, virtus derelicta is neither an Aristotelian solution to the problem of projectile motion nor a development on the road to early modern science; it belongs to a new (but subsequently undeveloped) understanding of motion. (shrink)

Irigaray’s engagement with Aristotelian physics provides a specific diagnosis of women’s ontological and ethical situation under Western metaphysics: Women provide place and containership to men, but have no place of their own, rendering them uncontained and abyssal. She calls for a reconfiguration of this topological imaginary as a precondition for an ethics of sexual difference. This paper returns to Aristotelian cosmological texts to further investigate the topologies of sexual difference suggested there. In an analysis both psychoanalytic and (...) phenomenological, the paper rigorously traces a teleological and oedipal narrative implicit in the structure of the Aristotelian cosmos, in which desire for the mother is superseded by love for the father. Further, the paper argues that this narrative is complicated by certain other elements in the Aristotelian text—aporias involving the notion of boundary and the relationship between space and time, the fallenness of the feminine, and the ineliminably aleatory qualities of matter. The paper concludes that such elements may provide material for disrupting this teleology of gender, opening onto not merely an ethics of sexual difference, but providing space and place for a proliferation of non-normative, queer, transgender and intersex modes of sexed and gendered subjectivity. (shrink)

I show that Aristotelian physics is a correct approximation of Newtonian physics in its appropriate domain, in the same precise sense in which Newton theory is an approximation of Einstein's theory. Aristotelian physics lasted long not because it became dogma, but because it is a very good theory.

This paper explores a specific problem within an important philosophical genre of the fourteenth century: the debates over the perfection of species. It investigates how the problem of defining limits for continuous magnitudes – a problem typical of Aristotelian physics – was integrated into these debates at the levels of genera, species, and individuals as these entities began to be conceptualized in quantitative terms. After explaining the emergence of this problem within fourteenth-century metaphysics, the paper examines the contributions (...) of three philosophers – Hugolinus of Orvieto, John of Ripa, and Paul of Venice – who offered varying solutions to the challenge of defining limits between species. It demonstrates that two primary solutions arose, inspired by continuous and discrete mathematical objects. It is shown that whereas Hugolinus of Orvieto advocates for a continuist model, John of Ripa proposes a discrete one. The last part of the paper examines Paul of Venice's hybrid approach, which combines elements from both models, facilitating a more comprehensive treatment of species particularly difficult to analyse, namely geometric figures. The conclusions of this comparative study underscore how profoundly the metaphysical reflections of the Middle Ages contributed to the analysis of the structure of the continuum and the extension of the notion of quantity to various objects. (shrink)

An Aristotelian Philosophy of Mathematics breaks the impasse between Platonist and nominalist views of mathematics. Neither a study of abstract objects nor a mere language or logic, mathematics is a science of real aspects of the world as much as biology is. For the first time, a philosophy of mathematics puts applied mathematics at the centre. Quantitative aspects of the world such as ratios of heights, and structural ones such as symmetry and continuity, are parts of the physical world (...) and are objects of mathematics. Though some mathematical structures such as infinities may be too big to be realized in fact, all of them are capable of being realized. Informed by the author's background in both philosophy and mathematics, but keeping to simple examples, the book shows how infant perception of patterns is extended by visualization and proof to the vast edifice of modern pure and applied mathematical knowledge. (shrink)

Aristotle’s concept of dynamis (potentiality) is distinct from the modern concept of energy. Both concepts have problematic limitations. We need a third alternative that is here called “sway.”.

Does Anaxagoras admit that the world is destructible? Aëtius’ doxographical handbook says as much, and so does a doxographical scholion derived from Alexander of Aphrodisias’ lost commentary on Aristotle’sPhysics(Frag. 539 Rashed) according to the transmitted text. However, because of other difficulties occurring in the same scholion, Rashed was led to correct not only this text, thus making it contradict Aëtius’ testimony, but also the entry dedicated to Plato. My article suggests that while Rashed’s corrections are superfluous, the problems that triggered (...) them are of great interest for the history of the doxographical tradition, for the way in which this tradition was used by Alexander of Aphrodisias and Simplicius in their commentaries on Aristotle’sPhysicsand, last but not least, for the understanding of the difficulties that ancient interpreters had to confront when they had to make sense of the lines now known as Anaxagoras B12 DK – difficulties that modern interpreters have still to confront. (shrink)

Aristotle has a rather extreme concept of change: Alteration is the change of a sensible quality in a thing. This is produced when a thing comes into immediate contact with another thing and is affected by the opposite sensible quality of the latter. Book VII, chapter 3 of the Aristotelian Physics is the crucial text to explore this topic. The present volume sets out to analyze and clarify the reason of this approach.

Aristotelian, or non-Platonist, realism holds that mathematics is a science of the real world, just as much as biology or sociology are. Where biology studies living things and sociology studies human social relations, mathematics studies the quantitative or structural aspects of things, such as ratios, or patterns, or complexity, or numerosity, or symmetry. Let us start with an example, as Aristotelians always prefer, an example that introduces the essential themes of the Aristotelian view of mathematics. A typical mathematical (...) truth is that there are six different pairs in four objects: Figure 1. There are 6 different pairs in 4 objects The objects may be of any kind, physical, mental or abstract. The mathematical statement does not refer to any properties of the objects, but only to patterning of the parts in the complex of the four objects. If that seems to us less a solid truth about the real world than the causation of flu by viruses, that may be simply due to our blindness about relations, or tendency to regard them as somehow less real than things and properties. But relations (for example, relations of equality between parts of a structure) are as real as colours or causes. (shrink)

The paper is a Response to the article “How (Not) to Be an Aristotelian with Regard to Contemporary Physics”.

The problem of the person may be described as the crux of Descartes' philosophy in the fairly obvious literal sense that it is the point of intersection of the two chief axes of the system, the Philosophy of Nature and the Philosophy of Mind. The actual, if not professed aim of the former is the ousting of the occult powers and faculties of Scholastic-Aristotelian physics by the mechanical concept of force or action-by-contact. The chief tenet of the latter (...) is that mind, whose essence is thinking, is clearly and distinctly conceivable apart from matter, the essence of which is extension. From this, by an illicit inference which need not concern us further, Descartes concludes that the mind is “really distinct” from matter, that is, a substance capable of existing apart from body in its own right. Where these two lines of thought meet, the problem of the person constitutes itself in the following manner. (shrink)

Previous chapter Between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD, rhythm begun to be understood exclusively under its Platonic-Aristotelian guise. Rhythm defined as order of movement or succession of time-lengths set up the general theoretical framework within which reflection was to remain in the West until the 18th century. The Platonic metric paradigm became dominant, at the expense of the Democritean physical paradigm but also of the Aristotelian poetic paradigm. The former - Sur le concept de (...) rythme – Nouvel article. (shrink)

A widespread view of the natural sciences holds that their historical development was accompanied by a constantly widening gap between them and magic. Originally closely bound up with magic, the sciences are supposed to have distanced themselves from it in a long-drawn-out process, until they attained their present magic-free form. I would like, in this essay, to discuss some arguments in support of this plausible view. To this end, I shall begin with a definition of magical and scientific concepts of (...) nature. To exemplify the gap which, over several epochs, widened between the magical and the scientific understanding of nature, I would like to examine two concepts in natural science, both assumed by physics. The first concept I select is Aristotle's concept of physis. It was fundamental to the emergence of physics, and sets its mark on thought in this field right up to the beginning of the modern period. The distinctive characteristic of the second concept of nature is negative, consisting in the elimination of the Aristotelian distinction between physis and techne. I consider Galileo Galilei to be a trail-blazer for this anti-magical position, as well as a co-founder of experimental science with his mechanical and astronomical works. As a conclusion I will say something of the relationship of magic to concepts of nature typical of the following period, both in physics and other natural sciences. (shrink)

ABSTRACT ABSTRACT: I show that Aristotelian physics is a correct and nonintuitive approximation of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain in the same technical sense in which Newton’s theory is an approximation of Einstein’s theory. Aristotelian physics lasted long not because it became dogma, but because it is a very good, empirically grounded theory. This observation suggests some general considerations on intertheoretical relationships.

This chapter focuses on the human body and how it falls out of Spinoza's physical picture in a natural way that it is a modification of something more fundamental. Spinoza's further view that the human mind is Substance's understanding of the universe when restricted to the human body implies that the mind, too, is a modification of something more basic, namely, Substance's thought. The appearance of a human body in Spinoza's plenum is merely the emergence of a new pattern of (...) motion and rest within Extension. The Aristotelian thesis that the real definition of a human being is rational animal may sound to us too “logical” or “formal” to count as a piece of natural philosophy, a piece of natural science. Spinoza's view that finite things depend on the invariant structure of some more basic order brings his natural philosophy much closer to ours than to Aristotelian natural philosophy. (shrink)

Haec tractatio est responsio critica ad tractationem Ludovici Groarke, titulo “Orbitae ellipticae, possintne Aristotelice explicari?”, necnon ad commentationem Jacobi Franklin, cui titulus “De orbitis ellipticis ac Aristotelica revolutione scientifica”. Auctor imprimis ostendit (ultra censuram a J. Franklin factam procedens) explanationem “Aristotelicam” orbitarum ellipticarum a L. Groarke propositam non solum analysi Newtonianae repugnare, sed etiam in se esse incohaerentem. Porro auctor alia L. Groarke proposita impugnat: scil. nostri temporis physicam mathematicam esse essentialiter Platonicam, item Newtonianam orbitarum ellipticarum explicationem assymetriam prae se (...) ferre inexplicabilem (cui sententiae J. Franklin quoque assentit). Auctor e contra arguit, textibus nonnulis S. Thomae Aquinatis innixus, physicam modernam, mathematica sui methodo non exclusa, realisticae epistemologiae Aristotelicae esse congruam, immo pure Aristotelice intelligi posse (ac debere). Auctor tamen reicit quod J. Franklin insinuat, scil. physicam modernam nunc Aristotelicae philosophiae naturalis explere munia. Physica mathematica enim, methodo sua constricta, quaestiones genuine philosophicas (nempe ad essentias rerum spectantes) movere non potest, ac proinde philosophiae naturalis vice fungi nequit.This discussion article is a critical reaction to L. Groarke’s paper “Can Aristotelianism Make Sense of Perihelion–Aphelion Orbits?” and J. Franklin’s comment “Elliptical Orbits and the Aristotelian Scientific Revolution”. In the first place, the author shows (going beyond Franklin’s criticism) that Groarke’s proposed “Aristotelian” explanation of elliptical planetary orbits is inconsistent both in itself and with the Newtonian analysis. Furthermore, he challenges Groarke’s claims that modern mathematical physics is inherently Platonic and that the Newtonian explication of elliptical orbits involves unexplained assymmetries (a claim endorsed by Franklin as well). With the help of several Aquinas’s texts the author argues that modern physics, including its maths-driven methodology, is not incompatible with Aristotelian realist epistemology but can (and should) be interpreted in a purely Aristotelian vein. On the other hand, the author rejects the view implied by Franklin that modern physics is an up-to-date replacement of Aristotelian philosophy of nature. Due to its methodological limits, mathematical physics is incapable of asking genuinely philosophical questions concerning the essence of bodies, and so it cannot be expected to do the job of natural philosophy. (shrink)

These substances have been considered in recent times, as in traditional interpretation, to be identical with the immobile Movers of the Physics. Both Physics and Metaphysics refer to the same separate substances. On the other hand, the immobile Movers of the Physics have been identified with the immanent souls of the Heavens, and so sharply distinguished from the separate substances of the Metaphysics. Then in the opposite extreme, the Movers of the Metaphysics have been completely identified with (...) the celestial souls. Or again, the first only of the Movers has been declared separate, and the others identified with the different sphere-souls, among which is the first Mover of the Physics. In still another interpretation the first Mover alone is separate, but the other immobile Movers are held to be the divine thoughts, identical with the first Mover. Even the first Mover has been interpreted as a thought in the mind of some other Being, as merely an ideal or standard of goodness which does not imply--though it need not exclude--any corresponding existent reality in the Aristotelian universe. (shrink)

I argue that a modern gloss on Aristotle’s notions of Form and Matter not only allows us to escape a dualism of the psychological and the physical, but also results in a plausible sort of materialism. This is because Aristotle held that the essential nature of any psychological state, including perception and human thought, is to be some physical property. I also show that Hilary Putnam and Martha Nussbaum are mistaken in saying that Aristotle was not a materialist, but a (...) functionalist. His functionalism should instead be given a materialistic interpretation, since he holds that only the appropriate sort of matter can realize the human psyche. Aristotle’s functionalism is therefore best viewed as a “causal functionalism,” in which functional descriptions enable us to find the right sort of material embodiment. By sidestepping dualistic assumptions, Aristotle also avoids having to deal with any further notion of consciousness. (shrink)

Aristotle's rule of proportions of the factors of motion, presented in VII 5 of the Physics, characterizes Aristotelian force. Observing that the locomotion to which Aristotle applied the Rule is the motion produced by manual labor, I develop an interpretation of the factors of motion that reveals that Aristotelian force is Newtonian power. An alternate interpretation of the Rule by Toulmin and Goodfield implicitly identifies Aristotelian force with Newtonian force. In order to account for the absence (...) of an acceleration in the rate of forced motion, they incorporate into the Rule the medium's resistance to motion due to viscosity as an additional factor. The resulting interpretations of the original factors of motion lose the exactness the power interpretation grants them. The constant rate of forced motion follows immediately from the power interpretation. It is also compatible with the Rule's description of the motion that is produced by the sum of forces. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Aristotelian Explorations by G. E. R. LloydRosamond Kent SpragueG. E. R. Lloyd. Aristotelian Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Pp. ix + 242. Cloth, $49.95.Although the essays in this richly rewarding book were given as lectures and seminars in a variety of places over a period of eight years, they possess a unity of theme that welds them into a satisfying whole. Furthermore, by the judicious (...) use of postscripts and additional notes, the author keeps us abreast of current discussion. [End Page 126]Lloyd’s chief concern is to compare Aristotle’s theory (notably as expressed in the Posterior Analytics) with his practice (especially in the zoology). The topic may be, as he admits in his 1990 Boston Colloquium lecture, “The Theories and Practices of Demonstration,” a “hoary old chestnut,” but his response to it is not; as is evident from the very title of his paper, he adopts a pluralistic approach to Aristotle’s methodology. Lloyd’s minute and extensive knowledge of the texts, as when he studies passages in the Topics in which what is there called apodeixis does not meet the conditions laid down in Posterior Analytics, makes his view compelling. Again, a careful study of Parts of Animals I, 1 issues in the caveat that “we had better be careful when talking about demonstration in the physical treatises, to examine what mode or manner of demonstration is in question” (33); it could be the method of deduction of antecedents, for instance, where we start with what will be rather than what is. In general, it needs to be considered not just whether a particular theory of demonstration is applied, but whether it is applicable.In a chapter entitled “The Relationship of Psychology to Zoology,” Lloyd discusses Aristotle’s theory of matter, particularly “the problem of reconciling what is true of earth, water, air, and fire haplōs... and what is true of them as the constituent elements of living uniform parts” (64). This difficulty has its repercussions for his form/matter distinction: the difference between the two is best illustrated by artefacts (as, I might add, is evident to those who attempt to teach it), but the unity of the sonolon by the cases in which the soul is form and the matter a living body of which the soul is the actuality.In this connection Lloyd makes reference to Aristotle’s “top-down theory of life” as being one quite definitely held by him (64, 99). I think that this is only partially the case. A passage such as De Anima 415a25ff. in which not only animals but plants are said, through reproduction, to aim at the eternal and divine, suggests that a “bottom-up” theory of life is equally important in his psychology, especially in view of his pervasive desire to stress the final cause. I think that Lloyd’s own principle of plurality in relation to context could well be applied here. The overall structure of the De Anima illustrates Aristotle’s use of both methods: bottom-up from nutrition through sensation to thought, but top-down from sight to touch. It is, of course, true that the De Anima is not concerned to address the question of how life emerges from not-life, but its discussion of living things quite definitely begins at the bottom of the scala naturae, with plants. Again, at History of Animals 588b4ff. (a passage crucial to Lloyd’s consideration of borderline cases in his chapter entitled “Fuzzy Natures?”), we find that Nature proceeds from the inanimate to the animate, and that first after the inanimate come plants. It also strikes me as being of interest that, when Aristotle discusses the difficult topic of growth in Generation and Corruption 321b16ff., he does so at the level of flesh and not of hands, from the bottom up, that is.Of other topics on which Lloyd has things to say, that of spontaneous generation is of particular interest. Here he points out that spontaneously generated creatures are of regular kinds; they have determinate material causes. As to whether Aristotle’s recognition of such cases has driven him “into admitting a principle that offers a glaring... (shrink)

The ArgumentOne of the earliest arguments for Copernicanism was a widely accepted fact: that on a horizontal plane a body subject to no external resistance can be set in motion by the smallest of all possible forces. This fact was contrary to Aristotelian physics; but it was a physical argument (by abduction) for the possibility of the Copernican world system. For it would be explained if that system was true or at least possible.Galileo argued: only nonviolent motions can (...) be caused by the smallest of all possible forces; hence resistance-free horizontal motions are nonviolent; this confirms Copernicanism insofar as it designates the rotations of celestial spheres (being resistance-free horizontal motions) as nonviolent.Galileo's argument was compatible with (and supportive of) the specific Copernican version of impetus mechanics; but it was also compatible with a (somewhat qualified) principle of inertia. Thus it promoted decisively the transition from impetus mechanics to classical inertial mechanics. (shrink)

The last two decades have seen two significant trends emerging within the philosophy of science: the rapid development and focus on the philosophy of the specialised sciences, and a resurgence of Aristotelian metaphysics, much of which is concerned with the possibility of emergence, as well as the ontological status and indispensability of dispositions and powers in science. Despite these recent trends, few Aristotelian metaphysicians have engaged directly with the philosophy of the specialised sciences. Additionally, the relationship between fundamental (...) Aristotelian concepts—such as "hylomorphism", "substance", and "faculties"—and contemporary science has yet to receive a critical and systematic treatment. _Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives on Contemporary Science _aims to fill this gap in the literature by bringing together essays on the relationship between Aristotelianism and science that cut across interdisciplinary boundaries. The chapters in this volume are divided into two main sections covering the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of the life sciences. Featuring original contributions from distinguished and early-career scholars, this book will be of interest to specialists in analytical metaphysics and the philosophy of science. (shrink)

There are many good reasons for seeing Aristotelian hylemorphism and atomism as diametrically opposed theories of matter. Aristotle himself had forcefully combatted the physical model of Leucippus and Democritus, whose ontology consisted of indivisible material bodies moving in an immaterial void, presenting his own model as an alternative. This alternative excluded both indivisibles and the void and postulated instead a plenist world made up of substances all of which were infinitely divisible continua composed of universal matter and specific substantial (...) forms. Unlike elementary atoms, Aristotle’s elementary substances could transmute into one another: water, when evaporating, was said to turn into air. (shrink)

In metaphysics and philosophy of science, a significant movement is making inroads, under the banner of ‘neo-Aristotelianism’. This movement has so far been focused primarily on the physical sciences; but given that Aristotle the natural scientist was above all a biologist, it is worth asking what a neo-Aristotelian philosophy of biology would look like? In this paper, I begin a discussion on precisely that question. One interesting result is that the fact that biology is now permeated by evolutionary ways (...) of thinking is all but irrelevant to answering that question. Far more important is how central are concepts of organic form, function and development to biology. Given recent developments, there are reasons to think at least some areas of the biological sciences would welcome a neo-Aristotelian philosophy of biology - i.e. a critical exploration of these concepts from an Aristotelian perspective. (shrink)

The first book of the Aristotelian Physics may be considered as a sort of general introduction to the whole work. In particular, chapters 2 and 3 result very interesting for the foundation of the science of nature according to Aristotle; indeed, in these two chapters, the Stagirite criticizes the position of the Eleates Parmenides and Melissus. These two philosophers are considered as those who claim that change does not exist because the existence of the not-being is impossible to (...) suppose. For this reason, since the Eleates deny that motion and change really exist, the refutation of their thesis results essential for the logical and ontological foundation of the Aristotelian science of nature. This paper wants to make light on the argumentations that Aristotle uses against Parmenides and Melissus. Indeed, since the Stagirite makes often use of his philosophical categories, it seems that his critics sound a little bit anachronistic. In many passages of the text is seems that Aristotle “simply” replace the presupposition of the Eleatic philosophy with the thesis of the evidence of moving and plurality, in general. The aim of this contribution is to reflect on the critics present in Ph. I 2–3 in order to underline the importance of the Eleatic philosophy for the Aristotelian science of nature. (shrink)

The central challenge for the temporal realist is providing a coherent analysis of temporal passage, the apparent ‘flow’ of time from earlier to later. I show here how the account of time Aristotle presents in Physics IV could serve as a basis for just such an analysis, for his view is immune to the standard stock of objections levelled by twentieth century philosophers. And although his account is itself subject to a damning objection, I believe that the troublemaking element (...) might be supplanted by alternative views suited to fulfil the requisite theoretical role. I conclude that, subject to such revision, an Aristotelian conception of time looks to be the leading candidate. (shrink)

Since Marshall Clagett’s work in the 1950s the importance of the Mertonian physicists in fourteenth century Oxford has been well understood. The recovery of Aristotle as a source for contemporary philosophy of physics, initiated by William Wallace’s important study The Modeling of Nature, has made the development of Aristotelian physics no longer a historical curiosity. Trifogli’s study of Oxford physics in the thirteenth century adds substantially to our understanding of Aristotle’s contribution, or rather one might say, (...) to how Aristotelian physics was received at that time: what they made of it. Inevitably, the story has to be told in terms of debate, since there is enough latitude in Aristotle’s own writings to permit a variety of interpretations. (shrink)

Despite the growing interest in Aristotelian approaches to contemporary philosophy of science, few metaphysicians have engaged directly with the question of how a neo-Aristotelian metaphysics of nature might change the landscape for theological discussion concerning theology and naturalism, the place of human beings within nature, or the problem of divine causality. The chapters in this volume are collected into three thematic sections: Naturalism and Nature, Mind and Nature, and God and Nature. By pushing the current boundaries of neo- (...) class='Hi'>Aristotelian metaphysics to recover the traditional notion of substantial forms in physics, reframe the principle of proportionality in biology, and restore the hierarchy of being familiar to ancient philosophy, this book advances a metaphysically unified framework that accommodates both scientific and theological knowledge, enriching the interaction between science, philosophy and theology. Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics and the Theology of Nature will be of interest to scholars and advanced students working in metaphysics, philosophy of science, natural theology, philosophical theology, and analytic theology. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: The Principles of Physics The Science of Natural Beings Motion, Causal Interaction, and Causational Synonymy Aristotelian Kinematics Aristotle's Theory of the Continuum The Causes of Elemental Motions Unmoved Movers Bibliography.

Aristotelian ethics is widely accepted by many scholars as a practical science. However, this study showed that it is not after all a practical science but a speculative or theoretical science. Having employed textual analysis on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, it was found out that eudaimonia the Highest Good/Chief Good which is the ultimate goal of Ethics is achieved not through action but through contemplation. Contemplation is the act not of the will but of intellect. Hence, the highest virtue or (...) excellence of man is the fulfilment of highest faculty which is reason in contemplation of the Chief Good. The Chief Good, which is characterized by Aristotle as final, complete, and Self-Sufficient End is not physical and concrete but rather incorporeal and abstract because such qualities cannot be found among corporeal entities. Thus, Aristotelian ethics is metaphysics; it is neither concrete nor practical. Moreover, happiness cannot be the Chief Good because happiness is merely an activity, a quality, and a disposition and an activity cannot be identified as end which is desired for its own sake. Therefore, the Chief Good must be a substance and this substance is the Final Cause/the Necessary Being which is the End of all ends and the Good of all goods. KEYWORDS: Philosophy, Aristotle, Ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, Moral Philosophy, Metaphysics,Theoretical Science, Speculative Science, Descriptive Textual Analysis, Philippines. (shrink)

For an Aristotelian observer, the halo is a puzzling phenomenon since it is apparently sublunary, and yet perfectly circular. This paper studies Aristotle's explanation of the halo in Meteorology III 2-3 as an optical illusion, as opposed to a substantial thing (like a cloud), as was thought by his predecessors and even many successors. Aristotle's explanation follows the method of explanation of the Posterior Analytics for "subordinate" or "mixed" mathematical-physical sciences. The accompanying diagram described by Aristotle is one of (...) the earliest lettered geometrical diagrams, in particular of a terrestrial phenomenon, and versions of it can still be found in modern textbooks on meteorological optics. (shrink)