tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post6345477298356435523..comments2023-04-17T07:26:06.116-05:00Comments on Gratia Super Naturam: The Definition of MotionVincentiushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-46469873292721292982008-10-15T13:46:00.000-05:002008-10-15T13:46:00.000-05:00Vincentius, please clarify your claim that I think...Vincentius, please clarify your claim that I think I inferred properly. It seems that you claim that a heavy body is ordered to a place. But if being in place, properly speaking, is being at rest, how do you explain this order absent this rest. For, when a rock falls to the earth, it ceases that accelerated motion. But it still is not properly at rest. With a force acting upon it, it's TheAdunkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02075203614552707330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-51112671034980726082008-10-14T21:45:00.000-05:002008-10-14T21:45:00.000-05:00Frater, Regarding your reply to DW's second object...Frater, <BR/><BR/>Regarding your reply to DW's second objection, I'm reminded of St. Thomas' discussion concerning intellect being in a way the beginning and end of rational discourse, and therefore Divine Science being named First Philosophy as well as Metaphysics:<BR/><BR/>"Sic ergo patet quod rationalis consideratio ad intellectualem terminatur secundum viam resolutionis, in quantum ratio ex Vincentiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-11034858368833240802008-10-14T21:32:00.000-05:002008-10-14T21:32:00.000-05:00A question/comment for you, Frater:You said, "It i...A question/comment for you, Frater:<BR/><BR/>You said, "It is only in motion that I have an order towards or away from some point." <BR/>It the order really given <I>only</I> by the motion itself? Doesn't a given mobile often have a determinate order to a place, even before it starts moving; or, conversely, have a determinate order to stay in a given place after it has moved? In fact, it seemsVincentiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-8068074263668184432008-10-14T21:30:00.000-05:002008-10-14T21:30:00.000-05:00My opinion is that a supposed "mathematical abstra...My opinion is that a supposed "mathematical abstraction" of inertia is not only strange, but impossible. If motion is in the account at all (which I assume will be the case with any presentation of inertia), then there has to be a consideration of sensible matter. Why? If there were only intelligible matter considered, as in mathematicals, being here or there would be enough to individuate. Vincentiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04622010447899090511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-7095721889848388282008-10-10T13:41:00.000-05:002008-10-10T13:41:00.000-05:00To clarify my question and point, I am thinking th...To clarify my question and point, I am thinking thus: Inertia seems to be a principle developed by the separation of any other body from the moving body in the imagination. TRUE. Further, the intellect then apprehends the body in motion as having some state. TRUE. Further, the intellect judges for there to be a change of state an agent is required. TRUE. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, it does not TheAdunkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02075203614552707330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-64441344660582557142008-10-10T13:09:00.000-05:002008-10-10T13:09:00.000-05:00Why is it you call 'Inertia' a mathematial abstrac...Why is it you call 'Inertia' a mathematial abstraction? Seems to me to be understood as a principle of Physics, namely the behavior of a kind of motion.TheAdunkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02075203614552707330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-29262614717758312932008-10-10T06:25:00.000-05:002008-10-10T06:25:00.000-05:00Frater, I agree with both of your replies. I was w...Frater, I agree with both of your replies. I was wandering along the same courses myself, but your ad Ium made things a lot clearer to me. It seems very true that "inertia" when pressed cannot claim to be a true abstraction from sensible matter. It also seems that in the former sense, as pure mathematical abstraction, it is a bizarre bird because it includes motion in its account. Strictly John B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12263867557448283280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-78309949452653253982008-10-09T20:45:00.000-05:002008-10-09T20:45:00.000-05:00Thank you for the stimulating questions DW.To the ...Thank you for the stimulating questions DW.<BR/><BR/>To the first:<BR/>I would refer you to Vincentius' paper on the topic of middle sciences that he posted a ling to a while back. He treats of Galileo in particular, but I think that he lays out clear principles by which we must understand mathematical abstraction in physics. <BR/>For now I will say the following:<BR/>when using the term inertialFrater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-24106800551728780522008-10-08T22:13:00.000-05:002008-10-08T22:13:00.000-05:00"The other logical possibility is that inertial mo..."The other logical possibility is that inertial motion is not motion, but this would be strange."<BR/><BR/>Why not? (Videtur quod) the law of inertia is a mathematical abstraction that is only intended to be descriptive of what exists in matter. However, mathematicals abstract from matter and motion. Hence inertial motion is not motion.<BR/><BR/>Praeterea...when Aristotle uses "act" and "potency"John B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12263867557448283280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14371726.post-45254389193999008782008-10-08T15:03:00.000-05:002008-10-08T15:03:00.000-05:00Footnotes to followFootnotes to followFrater Asinushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00220115052492563584noreply@blogger.com