Monday, February 10, 2014
Continuity
It seems plausible to suggest that in Book V Aristotle is taking the time to define and explain continuity because he believes it's essential in our understanding of motion. On pg. 140 he says, "And it is clear from from this definition that the continuous is among those things out of which some one thing naturally comes into being as a result of their uniting. And in whatever way the continuous becomes one, so too will the whole be one, such as by a bolt or glue or a mortise joint, or by growing into one another." This section seems to be a quintessential part of Book V in which Aristotle is stressing the importance of looking at the continuity and the unity or wholeness that is present in motion. But why is it necessary for Aristotle to look at motion in terms of continuity? What are the consequences of not looking at motion in this way?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is it too straightforward to say that continuity/discontinuity is what separates (Aristotle's) motion from change? I must admit, some of the arguments for continuity elude me - particularly those damnable ratios.
ReplyDeleteBut as I understand it, if a thing's motion is continuous (whether through alteration, growth/shrinkage, or locomotion) then we seem to be dealing with the same thing before and after the motion. Vice versa, if a thing's motion is discontinuous, then we seem to be dealing with two distinct things: one thing prior to and one thing after the motion.
I agree with you and will add: it is important not to be dealing with two distinct things because the form of a thing is the source and cause of its motion, or in other words form dictates the motion (Book III, ch. 2, 202a10). If we were dealing with two different things, it seems we could easily fall into the confusion of incidental motion. For example, a human being educated and growing taller is incidental to each other and thus not a continuous motion and not the same motion (224a21). I think as this relates to the form being the source and cause of motion, consider the intellect as the form that causes the motion of learning. The intellect is not going to also cause the body to grow, growth hormones cause the body to grow, or something like that.
DeleteI know that's not a perfect example and explanation (because technically the human form is the source and cause of the body's activity to grow and learn) but I was trying to break it down so it made sense.
So if it isn't continuous, being and non-being will be motions and not merely changes? Correct? Is Aristotle also using continuity to distinguish between motions of the same kind undergone at different times (or with different limits)?
ReplyDeleteI will echo Mackenzie G's sentiment about continuity and add that I'm still not sure I'm completely grasping it.