The Potency of Place (D6).pdf

The Potency1 of Place For Aristotle, definitions of place precede those of space. Things which exist are somewhere (the nonexistent is nowhere – where is the goat-stag or the sphinx (the mind – is that a “place?”)? Because “motion” in its most general and primary sense is change of place, which we c...

The Potency1 of Place For Aristotle, definitions of place precede those of space. Things which exist are somewhere (the nonexistent is nowhere – where is the goat-stag or the sphinx (the mind – is that a “place?”)? Because “motion” in its most general and primary sense is change of place, which we call “locomotion.” Further, the typical locomotions of the elementary natural bodies, namely fire earth and the like, show not only that place is something, but also that “place” exerts a certain influence. Each is carried to its own place, if it is not hindered the one up, the other down. Now these are regions or kinds of place – up and down and the rest of the six directions. Nor do such distinctions (up and down and right and left, etc.) hold only in relation to us. To us they are not always the same but change with the direction in which we are turned: that is why the same thing may be both right and down, before and behind. But in nature each is distinct, taken apart from itself. QUESTION: does “place exist with us? And how would Aristotle know the answer to my question? And my question different from the one that asks ‘if a tree fell in a forest and no one heard it does it make a sound?” The implication being that these places do not differ merely in relative position, but also as possessing distinct potencies. These considerations then would lead us to suppose that place is something distinct from bodies, and that every sensible body is in place. For place does not pass out of existence when the things in it are annihilated. NOTE: How would he know this? If a space is empty, nothing in it, does it exist? Accordingly, for Aristotle place is not isotropic (identical in all directions) as it is for Newton; however, it is absolute and independent of matter in the same way that it is for Newton (but not for Einstein). Time, by contrast, is relative to things, to matter, in a way that place is not: Not only do we measure the movement by the time, but also the time by the movement, because they define each other. The time marks the movement, since it is its number, and the movement the time. We describe the time as much or as little, measuring it by the movement, just as we know the number by what is numbered, e.g. the number of the horses by one horse as the unit. For we know how many horses there are by the use of the number; and again by using the one horse as unit we know the number of the horses itself. So it is with the time and the movement; for we measure the movement by the time and vice versa. It is natural that this should happen; for the movement goes with the distance and that time with the movement, because they are quanta2 and continuous and divisible. The movement has these attributes because the distance is of this nature, and the time has them because the movement. And we measure both the distance by the movement and the movement by the distance; for we say that the road is long, if the journey is long, and that this is long, if the road is long – the time, too, if the movement, and the movement, is the time. Time is a measure of motion and of being moved. The principles laid out in the Physics, especially concerning the importance of place and the explanation it provides for what we call gravity – why certain substances naturally seek certain places – are applied to the universe itself in On the Heavens. First, however, we must explain what we mean by “heaven” and in how many senses we use the word, in order to make clear the object of our inquiry. 1) in one sense, then, we call “heaven” the substance of the extreme circumference of the world, or the natural body whose place is at the extreme circumference. 1 2 The power of something to influence or make an impression. A measure of the smallest amount of something – usually energy – that something can possess. We recognize habitually a special right to the name “heaven” in the extremity or upper regions, which we take to be the seat of all that is divine. 2) in another sense, we use this name for the body continuous with the extreme circumference, which contains the moon, the sun, and some of the starts; these we say are “in the heaven.” 3) in yet another sense we give the name to all bodies included within the extreme circumference, since we habitually call the whole or totality “the heaven.” The word then, is used in three senses. Now the whole included within the extreme circumference must be composed of all physical and sensible body, because there neither is nor can come into being any body outside heaven. Aristotle turns his attention subsequently to the earth's position, shape, and rest or motion within the universe. His discussion by no means operates in a philosophical vacuum but accounts briefly for other views in competition with his own. The line of argument is instructive for any who have imbibed the old cliché according to which geocentric cosmology is said to locate the earth in the place of greatest importance in the universe. As to earth's position there is some difference of opinion. Most people – all, in fact, who regard the whole heaven as finite – say it lies at the center. But the Italian philosophers known as Pythagoreans take the contrary view. At the center, they say, is fire,3 and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by 3 Earth at the Universe's Center: The Conventional View  Conventional Belief: Traditionally, it was believed that the Earth is stationary and located at the center of the universe. This geocentric model was widely accepted because it seemingly aligned with direct observation of the sky, where celestial bodies appear to revolve around the Earth.  Rationale: The belief hinges on the observable facts of the day and night cycle, where the motion of celestial bodies across the sky suggested a universe revolving around a central Earth. Fire at the Universe's Center: The Pythagorean View  Pythagorean Belief: Contrary to the conventional view, Pythagoreans argued that at the center of the universe is fire, not Earth. According to them, the Earth is one of the stars, moving around this central fire, which creates the cycle of day and night.  Rationale: This belief stems from several philosophical and observational points:  The Preciousness of Fire: Pythagoreans considered fire to be more precious or fundamental than earth (“dirt/soil,” not the planet). In their view, the central position in the universe should be occupied by the most precious element.  Guard-house of Zeus: They named the central fire the "Guard-house of Zeus," implying a sacred or vital role for this central fire in the structure of the universe.  Mathematical vs. Natural Center: Pythagoreans differentiated between a mathematical center (a geometric concept) and a natural center (the essence or most important part of a structure). They believed the natural center should be the most guarded or significant part of the universe. Philosophical Implications  Center vs. Limits: The discussion touches upon a broader philosophical debate about what constitutes the essence of a system: its center or its limits. This debate reflects on how ancient philosophers conceptualized the universe's structure, prioritizing elements (like fire over earth) based on their perceived value or importance.  Essence vs. Matter: The passage also delves into the distinction between the essence of a system (its defining characteristics or limits) and the matter of the system (what is contained within those limits). The argument suggests that the essence (or what defines and contains) is more precious than the matter (or what is defined and contained). Examples in Modern Terms  Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Models: The ancient debate somewhat mirrors the later shift from the geocentric model (Earth at the center) to the heliocentric model (Sun at the center) of the solar system proposed by Copernicus.  Center of Gravity in Physics: The distinction between a geometric center and a center of mass or gravity in physics can be seen as a modern counterpart to the ancient discussion of mathematical vs. natural centers. The concept of a center in the universe is not straightforward. According to modern scientific understanding, the universe is infinite and uniform, meaning there is no center or edge in the traditional sense. The universe is expanding, and from any point in the universe, it appears as if everything is moving away from that point. This is known as the "Big Bang" model, which its circular motion about the center... There are many others who would agree it is wrong to give the earth the central position, looking for confirmation rather to theory than to the facts of observation. Their view is that the most precious place befits the most precious thing. But fire, they say, is more precious than earth, and the limits that the intermediate, and the circumference and the center are limits. Reasoning on this basis they take the view that it is not earth that lies at the center of the sphere, but rather fire. The Pythagoreans have a further reason. Thy hold that the most important part of the world, which is the center, should be most strictly guarded, and name it, or rather the fire which occupies that place, the “Guard-house of Zeus,” as if the word “center” were quite unequivocal, and the center of the mathematical figure were always the same with that of the thing or the natural center. But it is better to conceive of the case of the whole heaven as analogous to that of animals, in which the center of the animal and that of the body are different. For this reason they have no need to be so disturbed about the world, or to call in a guard for its center. Rather, let them look for the center in the other sense and tell us what it is like and where nature has set it. That center will be something primary and precious; but to the mere position we should give the last place rather than the first. For the middle is what is defined, and what defines it is the limit, and that which contains or limits is more precious than that which is limited, seeing that the latter is the matter and the former the essence of the system.... There are similar disputes about the shape4 of the earth. Some think it is spherical, others that it is flat and drum-shaped. For evidence they bring the fact that, as the sun rises and sets, the part concealed by the earth shows a straight and not a curved edge, whereas if the earth were spherical the line of section would have to be circular. In this they leave out of account the great distance of the sun from the earth and the great size of the circumference, which, seen from a distance on these apparently small circles, appears straight. Such an appearance ought not to make them doubt the circular shape of the earth.... Some have been led to assert that the earth below us is infinite, saying with Xenophanes of Colophon, that it has “pushed its roots to infinity” - in order to save the trouble of seeking for the cause. Hence the sharp rebuke of Empedocles, in the words “If the deeps of the earth are endless and endless the ample ether – such is the vain tale told describes the universe starting from a singularity and expanding ever since. In summary, the Pythagorean view of the universe, which places the center at the Earth's position, is not supported by modern scientific understanding. The universe is not geocentric, and there is no center in the traditional sense. The Pythagorean idea of a central fire is a philosophical concept that does not align with current scientific knowledge. In the Pythagorean view, "fire" in the passage does not directly refer to the Sun, but rather to a central fire that is the source of light and heat for the entire universe. This central fire is believed to be at the center of the universe, with all other celestial bodies, including the Sun, orbiting around it. The Pythagoreans also believed that the planets and stars emitted sounds as they moved, creating a "music of the spheres." This central fire was also referred to as the "Hearth" or "Hearth of the Universe" 4 The passage discusses different beliefs about the shape of the Earth.  Spherical vs. Flat Earth: Some people believe the Earth is round like a sphere, while others think it's flat and shaped like a drum. The people who think it's flat argue this because, when the sun rises and sets, the shadow on Earth looks straight instead of curved. They don't consider that the sun is very far away and the Earth is very big, which can make the curve seem straight from a distance.  Infinite Earth Theory: There's also a mention of a belief that the Earth goes down infinitely, without an end. This idea, mentioned by Xenophanes, suggests that the Earth has "pushed its roots to infinity" to avoid explaining what supports the Earth. Empedocles criticizes this view, saying it's a baseless story made by people who haven't seen much of the world.  Earth Resting on Water: Another ancient theory is that the Earth rests on water. This idea comes from ancient stories and suggests that the Earth stays in place because it floats on water like wood or other similar materials. However, the passage questions what supports the water, since water, like earth, cannot hang in mid-air and must rest on something. It argues that since air is lighter than water and water is lighter than earth, it doesn't make sense to think that water supports the Earth. by many a tongue, poured from the mouths of those who have seen but little of the whole.” Others say the earth rests upon water. This indeed is the oldest theory that has been preserved, and is attributed to tales of Miletus. It was supposed to stay still because is floated like wood and other similar substance, which are so constituted as to res upon water but not upon air. As if the same account had not to be given of the water which carries the earth as of the earth itself! Is not the nature of water, any more than of earth, to stay in mid-air: it must have something to rest upon. Again, as air is lighter than water, so is water than earth. How then can they think that the naturally lighter substance lies below the heavier? Aristotle's continuous assumption concerning the potency of place, whereby substance seek their proper or natural location, underlies his conclusions concerning both the shape and the movement or rest of the earth. The still current popular notion that geocentrism identifies earth as the center of the universe (as distinct from placing it, on account of its mere heaviness, at the center) dissolves before the sophisticated clarity of Aristotle's account. It happens that the center of the earth and the whole is the same.5 From what we have said, the explanation of the earth's immobility is also apparent. If it is the nature of earth, as observation shows, to move from any point to the center … then it is impossible that any portion of earth should move away from the center except by constraint. For a single thing has a single movement, and a simple thing a simple …. If then no portion of earth can move away from the center, obviously still less can the earth as a whole so move. For it is the nature of the whole to move to the point to which the part naturally moves. Since then it would require a force greater than itself to move it, it must needs sat at the center.... Earth's shape must necessarily be spherical. For every portion of earth has weight until it reaches the center, and the jostling of parts greater and smaller would bring about not a waved surface, but rather compression and convergence of part and part until the center is reached. The process should be conceived by supposing the earth to come into being in the say that some of the natural philosophers describe. Only they attribute the downward movement to constraint, and it is better to keep the truth and say that the reason this motion is that a thing which possess weight is naturally endowed with a centripetal (inward) movement. 5 The passage discusses why the Earth is stationary and why it has a spherical shape.  Earth's Center and Immobility: The text starts by saying that the Earth's center is also the center for everything on Earth. This is used to explain why the Earth does not move. Essentially, because elements like earth naturally move towards the center of the Earth, it's impossible for the Earth itself to move away from its center. The reasoning is that if all parts of the Earth naturally move towards the center, the whole Earth must do the same and therefore cannot move away from its center.  Nature of Movement: It mentions that every single object has its own natural movement. For earthy material, this movement is towards the center of the Earth. Since no part of the Earth can naturally move away from the center, the Earth as a whole cannot move away either.  Spherical Shape of Earth: The passage explains why the Earth is spherical. It argues that since every part of the Earth moves towards the center until it reaches a state of equilibrium, this movement would cause the Earth to form into a sphere. This is because all parts, regardless of size, would press together towards the center, resulting in a spherical shape rather than any other shape. In summary, the text argues that the Earth does not move because all its parts naturally move towards its center. This same inward movement of all parts towards the center is also what gives the Earth its spherical shape.