Nature’s Perfection: Aristotle and Descartes on Motion and Purpose

PDF
Published: Dec 28, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/cjp.25684
Keywords:
Aristotle Descartes motion physics conatus teleology mechanism
Justin Humphreys
Villanova University
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7176-9509
Abstract
Descartes holds that, insofar as nature is a purposeless, unthinking, extended substance, there could be no final causes in physics. Descartes’ derivation of his three laws of motion from the perfections of God thus underwrites a rejection of Aristotle’s conception of natural self-motion and teleology. Aristotle derived his conception of the purposeful action of sublunar creatures from his notion that superlunar bodies are perfect, eternal, living beings, via the thesis that circular motion is more complete or perfect than rectilinear motion. Descartes’ reduction of circular motion to rectilinear motion, achieved through his theological foundation of the laws of motion, thus marks a crucial break from Aristotle’s philosophy of nature. This paper argues that the shift from the Aristotelian conception of nature as self-moving and teleological to the Cartesian conception of nature as purposeless and inert, is not an empirical discovery but is rooted in differing conceptions of where perfection lies in nature.
Article Details
  • Section
  • Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Anscombe, Elizabeth. “Aristotle and the Sea Battle: De interpretatione, Chapter IX.” In The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe. Volume I: From Parmenides to Wittgenstein, 44-55. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981.
Ariew, Roger. Descartes and the First Cartesians. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Aristotelis. Analytica priora et posteriora. Edited by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Aristotelis. De anima. Edited by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956.
Aristotelis. De caelo libri quattuor. Edited by D. J. Allan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Aristotelis. Ethica Nicomachea. Edited by I. Bywater. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1894.
Aristotelis. Metaphysica. Edited by W. Jaeger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.
Aristotelis. Physica. Edited by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1950.
Aristotle. Meteorologica. Translated by H. D. P. Lee. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Bianchi, Emanuela. The Feminine Symptom: Aleatory Matter in the Aristotelian Cosmos. New York: Fordham University Press, 2014.
Cottingham, John, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Descartes, René. Ouvres de Descartes. Edited by Ch. Adam, and P. Tannery. Paris: Vrin/C.N.R.S. 1964-76.
Garau, Rodolfo. “Late-Scholastic and Cartesian Conatus.” Intellectual History Review 24, no. 4 (2014): 479-494.
Garber, Daniel. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Gill, Mary Louise. “The Theory of the Elements in De caelo 2 and 4.” In New Perspectives on Aristotle’s De caelo, edited by A. C. Bowen, and C. Wildberg, 139-162. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Gotthelf, Allan. “Aristotle’s Conception of Final Causality.” In Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, edited by A. Gotthelf, and J. G. Lennox, 204-242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Hamlyn, David W. Aristotle De anima Books II and III. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Hatfield, Gary. The Routledge Guidebook to Descartes’ Meditations. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Humphreys, Justin. “Husserl’s Archaeology of Exact Science.” Husserl Studies 30 (2014): 101-127.
Husserl, Edmund. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Translated by D. Carr. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970.
Koryé, Alexandre. From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1957.
Kosman, Aryeh A. “Aristotle’s Prime Mover.” In Self-Motion: From Aristotle to Newton, edited by Mary Louise Gill, and James G. Lennox, 135-154. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Lang, Helen. The Order of Nature in Aristotle’s Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Sachs, Joseph. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Newbury, MA: Focus Philosophical Library, 2002.
Sedley, David. “Teleology, Aristotelian and Platonic.” In Being, Nature, and Life in Aristotle, edited by J. G. Lennox, and R. Bolton, 5-29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Shoemaker, Sydney. Physical Realization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Waterlow, Sarah. Nature, Change, and Agency in Aristotle’s Physics: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.