Of course, we don't know what a 'subdued earth' will look like as opposed to what Aristotle's vision of what an organistic nature had in mind if left undisturbed.
Hmm, I do think there’s a difference between discussing whether the Universe is organismic vs. whether substances within the universe (stars, planets, plants, etc.) are. It’s not clear to me that Aristotle ever claimed the former?
As for the latter position, isn’t that just belief in Aristotelian metaphysics in general? Final causality and hylomorphism and all that. It seems like you would have to reject Aristotelian metaphysics if you want to deny that.
Also, while Aristotle got a lot wrong about physics, I’m less sure this stemmed from his metaphysics. There are modern philosophers who defend that natural objects have “powers”, which is basically the Aristotelian position. It’s more of an explanation of the laws of nature than a specific theory about what a particular law of nature is - it competes with Platonic Laws, Humean regularity theories, etc.
Anyway, those are just some jumbled thoughts! I won’t pretend to be an expert on any of this. 😅
Now that had to be tedious, but worthwhile. Well done. I would also note that St Thomas did not slavishly follow Aristotle in numerous ways. For example, Thomas did not take the cosmos to be an organism; neither did he accept Aristotle’s peristaltic concept of movement in the case of “violent” motions of bodies in a medium; Thomas proposed that a body such as a ball that is thrown moves in “virtue” of the movement from the hand being imparted to the body, whereby the ball can bounce off a wall and continue to move because of the original movement imparted to it by the hand (in this respect Thomas adumbrated momentum in part); Galileo, like Aristotle believed that “heavenly” bodies can only move in perfect circles because that is their necessary natural motion in the aether; it was Kepler (due to respecting Tycho’s very detailed observations) who proposed that planets move in elliptical orbits, thus eliminating epicycles, unlike Galileo (Galileo had his own a priori “world view” commitments). Despite Aristotle’s astronomical short comings, many biologists, including Darwin, considered Aristotle a masterful biologist in his own right. Most importantly, St Thomas while accepting Aristotle’s four natural causes, modified their meaning in a most significant way by his “world view” of creation ex nihilo and his understanding of esse and essence. For Aquinas, Aristotle’s understanding of causes and causation was translated into a fundamentally new science. So, Stacy, as you apply yourself to incorporating Aristotelian causes into a fuller understanding of modern chemistry you will need to determine who’s version of Aristotle is the most accurate. You definitely have your work cut out. I would say so far so good. Happy brainstorming.
"It certainly seems that Aristotle thinks of the universe as an organism and that he takes his predecessors to task for not doing so as well."
Very interesting. I get the distinct feeling that Aristotle somehow believed and convinced himself that the universe would make a better 'pet' that didn't have any tricks up its sleeve, rather than provide for the exception it had an Owner whose purpose was let others show off the potential it was made for.
Of course, we don't know what a 'subdued earth' will look like as opposed to what Aristotle's vision of what an organistic nature had in mind if left undisturbed.
Hmm, I do think there’s a difference between discussing whether the Universe is organismic vs. whether substances within the universe (stars, planets, plants, etc.) are. It’s not clear to me that Aristotle ever claimed the former?
As for the latter position, isn’t that just belief in Aristotelian metaphysics in general? Final causality and hylomorphism and all that. It seems like you would have to reject Aristotelian metaphysics if you want to deny that.
Also, while Aristotle got a lot wrong about physics, I’m less sure this stemmed from his metaphysics. There are modern philosophers who defend that natural objects have “powers”, which is basically the Aristotelian position. It’s more of an explanation of the laws of nature than a specific theory about what a particular law of nature is - it competes with Platonic Laws, Humean regularity theories, etc.
Anyway, those are just some jumbled thoughts! I won’t pretend to be an expert on any of this. 😅
Now that had to be tedious, but worthwhile. Well done. I would also note that St Thomas did not slavishly follow Aristotle in numerous ways. For example, Thomas did not take the cosmos to be an organism; neither did he accept Aristotle’s peristaltic concept of movement in the case of “violent” motions of bodies in a medium; Thomas proposed that a body such as a ball that is thrown moves in “virtue” of the movement from the hand being imparted to the body, whereby the ball can bounce off a wall and continue to move because of the original movement imparted to it by the hand (in this respect Thomas adumbrated momentum in part); Galileo, like Aristotle believed that “heavenly” bodies can only move in perfect circles because that is their necessary natural motion in the aether; it was Kepler (due to respecting Tycho’s very detailed observations) who proposed that planets move in elliptical orbits, thus eliminating epicycles, unlike Galileo (Galileo had his own a priori “world view” commitments). Despite Aristotle’s astronomical short comings, many biologists, including Darwin, considered Aristotle a masterful biologist in his own right. Most importantly, St Thomas while accepting Aristotle’s four natural causes, modified their meaning in a most significant way by his “world view” of creation ex nihilo and his understanding of esse and essence. For Aquinas, Aristotle’s understanding of causes and causation was translated into a fundamentally new science. So, Stacy, as you apply yourself to incorporating Aristotelian causes into a fuller understanding of modern chemistry you will need to determine who’s version of Aristotle is the most accurate. You definitely have your work cut out. I would say so far so good. Happy brainstorming.
"It certainly seems that Aristotle thinks of the universe as an organism and that he takes his predecessors to task for not doing so as well."
Very interesting. I get the distinct feeling that Aristotle somehow believed and convinced himself that the universe would make a better 'pet' that didn't have any tricks up its sleeve, rather than provide for the exception it had an Owner whose purpose was let others show off the potential it was made for.
Wow just finishing 4 and here’s 5… feels like drinking from a fire hose but so good!