A Comparison of Platos and Newtons Conceptions of Movement - Coursework Example

Philosophy of Movement: A Comparison of Plato’s and Newton’s Conceptions of Movement By Philosophy of Movement: A Comparison of Plato’s and Newton’s Conceptions of Movement Plato’s conception and definition of movement In his the dialogue the Timaeus, Plato defines movement as, the chaotic motion of traces in the chora/receptacle. Once the traces are winnowed into the elements, the elements are ordered into a cosmic sphere with rotational motion in time. For better exposition of the Plato’s conception of movement, it is important to look at the various elements of the Plato’s definition of movement. To begin with, let us look at what Plato meant by the traces that moves haphazardly in the receptacle or in the chora. For Plato, the primary elements or the traces of the physical universe are the fire, the earth, the air and the water (Plato, n.d). But although Plato gives the four primary elements/traces of the physical reality, Plato saw fire and earth as the main primary elements of the physical, tangible reality; the air and the water are just intermediary ingredients that serve the combine the fire and the earth into an extended physical reality. Prior to the creation of the ordered universe by the Demiurge, the traces or the primary elements of the physical reality were in a state of chaos, moving randomly and haphazardly. It was the Demiurge that arranged the chaotic traces of the physical reality into ordered elements that composed the Cosmos as we know it. The other important notion in Plato’s definition of movement is the notion of chora or the receptacle. Plato conceived the chora as the receptacle or the space in which the traces of the physical reality were contained. For Plato, the chora is neither a being, nor a non-being, the chora is an interval between the being and non-being, and it enables the physical reality to manifest itself in time. Plato, therefore, saw the traces or the primary elements of the physical realty as having moved randomly in the chora, before the Demiurge ordered and winnowed the traces into elements that composed the physical universe. For Plato, therefore, movement is the chaotic movement of the traces of the physical reality in the chora or in the receptacle. For Plato, however, movement of the physical reality does not end with the ordering of the primary elements of the physical reality into the elements that compose the ordered universe. For Plato, once the traces of the physical reality are winnowed into the elements that constitute the universe, the resultant elements are ordered into a cosmic sphere with rotational motion in time. According to Plato, the rotational motion of the universe is circular motion. This kind of motion is different from the chaotic movement of the traces of the physical reality in the chora. Plato also discussed other six different kinds of motions of the physical reality in the ordered physical universe; all the six different kinds of movements are movements that involve the change of location or place. The six kinds of movements are the upward movement, the downward movement, the left movement, the right movement; the forward movement and the backward movement. Plato, therefore, in total conceived seven types of motion, the circular motion included. Another critical point in understanding Plato’s conception of movement is the idea that motion or movement is brought about by inequality. For Plato, in order for something to move, there must be a thing that sets it in motion. The thing that sets another in motion should be in actuality so that it can actuate the movement potentiality in the thing to be moved, hence, there is an inequality between the mover and the thing moved; the mover is in actuality in regard to the ability to actuate the movement potentiality in the thing to be moved, while the thing to be moved is in potentiality in regard to movement. Plato saw God as the first mover because it was God, through the Demiurge, who created the traces of the physical reality and set them in chaotic motion in the chora. In conclusion, it is important to note that for Plato, in line with his metaphysics of the forms, all the physical realities are merely the shadows of the true forms, that are the models upon which the material physical realities were created. For this reason, Plato viewed his theory of movement as only probable, because it seeks to explain a reality that is beyond the shadowy physical reality; the reality that is found in the world of forms where the true reality is found. In summary, therefore, this is the description of Plato’s conception of movement. Newton’s Conception and Definition of Movement According to Isaac Newton, movement is the change of place in absolute space. For better analysis of the Newton’s conception of movement, it is important to look at Newton’s understanding of the absolute space. Newton distinguished the absolute space and the relative space. The absolute space refers to the metaphysical space that is immovable and that is the receptacle to all physical things; the absolute space is the context in which all the physical objects move. Relative space, on the other hand, refers to the space in which the physical things move relative to something else; relative space is the measurable and the movable perceptual space that is a dimension of the absolute space. Based on the distinction between the absolute space and the relative space, Newton argued that there are two types of movements, i.e. the absolute movement and the relative movement. According to Newton, absolute motion refers to the change of the position or location of a physical body from one absolute place or location to another absolute place (Newton, n.d). In this sense, absolute movement refers to the change of positions/location of physical objects within the immovable and the immeasurable absolute space. Newton conceived the absolute movement as the movement proper. Hence, Newton gave the definition of the absolute movement as his official definition of movement. The relative movement, on the other hand, refers to the change of a position of a physical body from one relative position/place, to another relative position. For Newton, relative motion is a form of absolute movement because it involves change of place from one absolute place to another absolute space. Newton also conceived God as some form of space, who creates and fashions things endowed with forces and motion. Newton, however, distinguished God and space by asserting that, although God is eternal and omnipresent and immaterial, He is not space or time. For Newton, God is the one who constitutes time and space. For Newton, therefore, since God is the one who constitutes the absolute space, God is a space who is the creator of all physical bodies. For Newton, the physical bodies are capable of motion because God endowed them with the forces and the potentialities of motion. A comparison of Plato’s and Newton’s Conception of movement A critical look at the Plato’s and the Newton’s conceptions of movement reveals some striking similarities, despite the fact that the two scholars lived in different historical periods. There are, however, some fundamental differences in the conceptions of movement by the two scholars. One of the striking similarities between Plato’s conception of motion and Newton’s understanding of motion is in regard to the space. Although in the dialogue the Timaeus Plato does not explicitly talk about space, a critical look at Plato’s conception of the chora or the receptacle shows that the chora is actually what Newton refers to as the absolute time. This is because Plato is of the view that the chora is the receptacle that contains all the physical bodies; Newton is of the same idea for he argues that the absolute space is the immovable space that is receptacle to all physical bodies. In line with the similar conceptions of the absolute space/chora, Plato and Newton also have similar conceptions of movement; both Plato and Newton conceive movement as the change of positions/place by the physical bodies from one place within the absolute space/chora to another. For Plato, movement is the chaotic motion of the traces in the chora; Newton, on the other hand, conceived motion as the movement of the physical bodies from one place to another within the absolute space. This fact therefore shows that Plato and Newton had similar conceptions of movement. Plato and Newton, however, had different understandings of the nature of the physical bodies that moves in the absolute space or in the chora. For Plato, it is the traces or the primary elements of the physical reality that moves randomly in the chora; for Newton, however, it is the material physical bodies that changes places in the absolute space. Another difference between Plato and Newton in their conceptions of movement is that, while Plato understood the movement of the traces in the chora as being chaotic, Newton did not consider the movement of the physical bodies in the absolute space as being chaotic; for Newton, the movement of the physical bodies in the absolute space is not random. Another similarity between Plato and Newton in their understanding of the nature of movement lies in the fact that the two scholars understood inequality as a pre-requisite for movement. Plato was quite explicit on this issue and stated that, in order for something to move, there must be something else in actuality that puts it into motion, in other words, the movement potentiality in the movable thing must be actuated by something already in actuality. Newton wasn’t explicit on this issue but a critical look at the Newton’s conception of movement shows that Newton actually was of the view that inequality is a pre-condition for movement. This is because Newton argues that God created the physical bodies and endowed them with forces and motion. What this means is that movement is not possible without a movable thing, with the movement potentiality, and a moving thing/the mover with the force of moving another thing in actuality. This fact therefore shows that Plato and Newton are agreed that inequality between the mover and the movable thing is a pre-condition for movement. Another important difference between Plato and Newton understanding of movement lies in the fact that, while Plato distinguished seven different types of movements, Newton distinguished only two types of movement. Plato based his categorisation of movements on the direction that a movement takes, while Newton based his categorisation of motion on the kind of space in which it takes place, i.e. whether the movement takes place in the absolute space or in the relative space. Another important difference between Plato’s and Newton’s conceptions of movement lies in their different Metaphysics. According to Plato, in line with his metaphysical theory of forms, the definition and the conception of movement that he gave was merely probable because it was an attempt to describe a metaphysical reality based on the shadows that the physical reality is. For Newton, however, the definition and the conception of movement that he gave was a true explanation of the nature of movement; in his Metaphysics, Newton conceived the physical world as being actual and true, and not a shadow of the perfect world in the world of forms. In conclusion, a critical look at the Plato and Newton conceptions of movement shows that the two scholars are agreed on a number of issues on the nature of movement, although the scholars have some fundamental differences on the nature of movement. The main difference between these two scholars in their conceptions of movement lies in their different metaphysics. Plato based his definition and his conception of the nature of movement on his metaphysical theory of forms, while Newton based his definition and conception of movement on his Metaphysics of the physical world as being true and actual. References Newton, I. (n.d). De Gravitione . Web. Plato.(n.d). Timaeus. Web. Read More