I argue that Plato believes that the soul must be both the principle of motion and the subject of cognition because it moves things specifically by means of its thoughts. I begin by arguing that the soul moves things by means of such acts as examination and deliberation, and that this view is developed in response to Anaxagoras. I then argue that every kind of soul enjoys a kind of cognition, with even plant souls having a form of Aristotelian (...) discrimination (krisis), and that there is therefore no completely unintelligent, evil soul in the cosmos that can explain disorderly motions; as a result, the soul is not the principle of all motion but only motion in the cosmos after it has been ordered by the Demiurge. (shrink)

In apparent motion experiments, participants are presented with what is in fact a succession of two brief stationary stimuli at two different locations, but they report an impression of movement. Philosophers have recently debated whether apparent motion provides evidence in favour of a particular account of the nature of temporal experience. I argue that the existing discussion in this area is premised on a mistaken view of the phenomenology of apparent motion and, as a result, the space (...) of possible philosophical positions has not yet been fully explored. In particular, I argue that the existence of apparent motion is compatible with an account of the nature of temporal experience that involves a version of direct realism. In doing so, I also argue against two other claims often made about apparent motion, viz. that apparent motion is the psychological phenomenon that underlies motion experience in the cinema, and that apparent motion is subjectively indistinguishable from real motion. (shrink)

This essay proposes a new interpretation of a central, and yet overlooked, argument Leibniz offers against Descartes’s power-free ontology of the corporeal world. Appealing to considerations about the successiveness of motion, Leibniz attempts to show that the reality of motion requires force. It is often assumed that the argument is driven by concerns inspired by Zeno. Against such a reading, this essay contends that Leibniz’s argument is instead best understood against the background of an Aristotelian view of the (...) priority of real being over time. The essay also shows how this alternative interpretation can help to shed new light on the difference between Leibnizian forces and Aristotelian powers, as well as on Leibniz’s famous claim that accounting for force leads us beyond the mechanistic corporeal realm. (shrink)

The paper argues that Motion and Rest are “greatest kinds” and not just convenient examples, since they are all-pervading. Thus Motion and Rest can be jointly predicated of a single subject and can be predicated of each other, just as Sameness and Otherness can. While Sameness and Otherness are opposites, a single subject may be the same in one respect, namely, the same as itself, and other in another respect, namely, other than other things. Thus they can be (...) predicated of a single subject, and they can be predicated of each other, as well, since Sameness is other than other things and Otherness is the same as itself. The same explanation applies to Motion and Rest, as the paper demonstrates: a given subject may be in motion in one respect while being at rest in another respect. This distinction is made in the Sophist itself, right in the passage concerning the greatest kinds. Thus Motion and Rest should be considered greatest kinds on par with Being, Sameness, and Otherness, and each of these kinds pervades all other kinds. (shrink)

The concept of Substantial motion (حركت جوهرى) is fundamentally flawed and severely muddled. Aristotle and Mulla Sadra’s conception of motion, substance (جوهر) and substantial form صورت نوعيه)) were all based on a severe misunderstanding of nature as later was established by the scientists and philosophers that came after them. Here, by recalling the established facts of modern science, particularly the universally accepted scientific fact that, properties of objects are reducible to the motion of their electrons and there’s (...) no such thing as ‘substantial form’ much less substance, the author puts an end to a 400-year-old glorious error called ‘substantial motion’. Naturally any attempt to reconcile the paradigms of modern physics with Aristotle/Sadra paradigms of form/matter and substance/accidents, and to try to draw parallel between the two and revive their philosophy would be an exercise in futility. (shrink)

What if motion is not what we think it is? This essay proposes a radical yet conceptually grounded reinterpretation of motion and inertia. Motion is not a simple passage through pre-existing space; it is a dynamic expression of spacetime itself. Inertia is not an external resistance, but the energetic boundary of a system, a subtle whisper from the universe that a system is reaching its limit. Drawing on general relativity, cosmology, and epistemology, I argue that distance, duration, (...) and motion are not fundamental givens but emergent relational structures, constrained by energy, geometry, and the logic of consistent observation. This essay does not offer new empirical predictions; it challenges how we think about the very fabric of motion. (shrink)

The Motion-Time Paradox (V-T Paradox) argues that motion and time are inseparably intertwined, forming the backbone of our relatively objective reality, yet neither can be defined without the other, leading to an inescapable logical loop. This paper explores four cases—motion defining time, time defining motion, their unity, and their separation—all collapsing into contradiction. Motion, tied to materialism, and time, rooted in idealism, undermine both philosophies and dualism itself, as no alternative escapes the circular dependency or (...) self-negation dubbed “ultimate negation.” Facing 33 challenges from physics (e.g., relativity, quantum mechanics), philosophy (e.g., Kant, non-dual metaphysics), and mathematics, the paradox stands unyielding—every rebuttal loops back or dissolves. Inexpressible yet irrefutable, V-T smashes foundational assumptions, urging a radical rethinking of reality beyond motion and time. If unanswerable, it questions whether all human knowledge rests on a mystery we’re blind to solve—a haunting challenge to science and philosophy alike. (shrink)

In the texts of the middle years (roughly, the 1680s and 90s), Leibniz appears to endorse two incompatible approaches to motion, one a realist approach, the other a phenomenalist approach. I argue that once we attend to certain nuances in his account we can see that in fact he has only one, coherent approach to motion during this period. I conclude by considering whether the view of motion I want to impute to Leibniz during his middle years (...) ranks as a kind of realism or rather as some kind of phenomenalism or idealism. (shrink)

This article explores how Plato, in his “metaphysical” dialogues, sees the specific properties of motion (and especially of motion in music), which lend themselves to adaptation for the purposes of maintaining or restoring the health of the soul. Plato explores the property of regular or rhythmic motion in particular. The attention has been drawn to the analogy between the calming effect of music, at the human level, and the Demiurge’s achievement in willing the world into existence. The (...) focus of the article lays on the Laws, in which the principle of musical motion plays a central role in resolution of the contradictions between material and spiritual, natural and physiological, medical and educative. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ. Cet article examine plusieurs façons de comprendre les émotions comme des réactions évaluatives. Il existe un consensus dans les sciences affectives qui veut que les émotions paradigmatiques soient faites de quatre composants : catégorisation du stimulus, tendances à l’action, changements corporels et aspect phénoménal. L’article expose les quatre principales théories dans la philosophie contemporaine des émotions et montre qu’elles ont tendance à se focaliser sur l’un ou l’autre des quatre composants des émotions pour expliquer leur nature évaluative. La conclusion (...) est qu’il est possible de rendre compte des émotions comme réactions évaluatives à ces quatre niveaux et que, pour cette raison, les conceptions présentées sont plus complémentaires qu’on ne le suppose généralement. ABSTRACT. This article examines several ways of understanding emotions as evaluative reactions. There is a consensus in affective sciences that paradigmatic emotions are made up of four components: appraisal process, action tendencies, bodily changes, and phenomenal character. The article outlines the four main theories in contemporary philosophy of emotions and shows that they tend to focus on one of the four components of emotions to explain their evaluative nature. The conclusion is that it is possible to account for emotions as evaluative reactions through the four components and that, for this reason, the theories presented are more complementary than is generally assumed. (shrink)

This chapter explores a novel interpretation of the fourth spatial dimension—not as an abstract orthogonal axis beyond length, width, and height, but as the geometric trace of motion itself. Drawing from personal insights and classical sources such as Carl Sagan and Timothy Gowers, the author reconsiders conventional visualizations of four-dimensional objects like the tesseract and 4-simplex, proposing that these forms can be understood as spatial records of transformation. Through recursive dimensional reasoning and dynamic visualization, motion is reframed as (...) a measurable extension of three-dimensional form, with time serving as a metric rather than a separate dimension. The chapter introduces a coordinate framework (x, y, z, t) where the fourth axis encodes motion-vectors, and examines how shapes like cubes, tetrahedra, and spheres evolve through space to generate four-dimensional structures. By treating motion as a spatial dimension, the chapter bridges geometry, physics, and perception—arguing that the fourth dimension is not inaccessible, but visible in the dynamic world around us. (shrink)

This item is a chapter from a book in progress, entitled "True Motion". Leibniz’s mechanics was, as we shall see, a theory of elastic collisions, not formulated like Huygens’ in terms of rules explicitly covering every possible combination of relative masses and velocities, but in terms of three conservation principles, including (effectively) the conservation of momentum and kinetic energy. That is, he proposed what we now call (ironically enough) ‘Newtonian’ (or ‘classical’) elastic collision theory. While such a theory is, (...) for instance, vital to the foundations of the kinetic theory of gases, it is not applicable to systems – like gravitational systems – in which fields of force are present. Thus, Leibniz’s mechanical principles never led to developments of the order of Newton’s in the Principia (additionally, he hamstrung their application by embedding them in a baroque philosophical system). (shrink)

This work takes into account three Cartesian manuals diffused in 17th century France ; Jacques Rohault, Traité de physique ; Pierre-Sylvain Régis, Cours entier de philosophie, ou système general selon les principes de M. Descartes contenant la logique, la metaphysique, la physique et la morale ) in order to question if the development of an empirical attitude in the scientific research influenced their approaches to the study of motion. The article intends to deepen the role that these authors give (...) to God in the physical structure of the universe with the purpose of investigating whether their analysis of motion is untainted by the metaphysical component or on what terms it remains linked to it. (shrink)

The impetus theory of motion states that to be in motion is to have a non-zero velocity. The at-at theory of motion states that to be in motion is to be at different places at different times, which in classical physics is naturally understood as the reduction of velocities to position developments. I first defend the at-at theory against the criticism raised by Arntzenius that it renders determinism impossible. I then develop a novel impetus theory of (...) motion that reduces positions to velocity developments. As this impetus theory of motion is by construction a mirror image of the at-at theory of motion, I claim that the two theories of motion are in fact epistemically on par—despite the unfamiliar metaphysical picture of the world furnished by the impetus version. (shrink)

In the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, Kant presents an argument for the centrality of <motion> to our concept <matter>. This argument has long been considered either irredeemably obscure or otherwise defective. In this paper I provide an interpretation which defends the argument’s validity and clarifies the sense in which it aims to show that <motion> is fundamental to our conception of matter.

Perpetual motion has traditionally been denied by the second law of thermodynamics. However, this impossibility can be decomposed into two layers: the purely ideal, which remains logically conceivable, and the practically feasible, which manifests as quasi-perpetual sys- tems. This paper proposes a reframing of perpetual motion, not as a strict impossibility, but as a concept requiring dual interpretation: an ideal abstraction beyond observation and a practical engineering approximation.

I examine the reasons Aristotle presents in Physics VIII 8 for denying a crucial assumption of Zeno’s dichotomy paradox: that every motion is composed of sub-motions. Aristotle claims that a unified motion is divisible into motions only in potentiality (δυνάμει). If it were actually divided at some point, the mobile would need to have arrived at and then have departed from this point, and that would require some interval of rest. Commentators have generally found Aristotle’s reasoning unconvincing. Against (...) David Bostock and Richard Sorabji, inter alia, I argue that Aristotle offers a plausible and internally consistent response to Zeno. I defend Aristotle’s reasoning by using his discussion of what to say about the mobile at boundary instants, transitions between change and rest. There Aristotle articulates what I call the Changes are Open, Rests are Closed Rule: what is true of something at a boundary instant is what is true of it over the time of its rest. By contrast, predications true of something over its period of change are not true of the thing at either of the boundary instants of that change. I argue that this rule issues from Aristotle’s general understanding of change, as laid out in Phys. III. It also fits well with Phys. VI, where Aristotle maintains that there is a first boundary instant included in the time of rest, but not a “first in which the mobile began to change.” I then show how this rule underlies Aristotle’s argument that a continuous motion cannot be composed of actual sub-motions. Aristotle distinguishes potential middles, points passed through en route to a terminus, from actual middles. The Changes are Open, Rests are Closed Rule only applies to actual middles, because only they are boundaries of change that the mobile must arrive at and then depart from. On my reading, Aristotle argues that the instant of arrival, the first instant at which the mobile has come to be at the actual middle, cannot belong to the time of the subsequent motion. If it did, the mobile would already be moving towards the next terminus and thus, per Phys. VI 6, would have already left. But it cannot have moved away from the midpoint at the very same moment it has arrived there. This means that the instant of arrival must be separated from the time of departure by an interval of rest. I show how Aristotle’s reasoning applies generally to rule out any continuous reflexive motion or continuous complex rectilinear motion. On my interpretation, however, the argument does not apply to every change of direction. When, as in the case of projectile motion, multiple movers and their relative powers explain why the mobile changes directions, distinct sub-motions are not involved. Aristotle holds that such motions cannot be continuous, not because they involve intervals of rest, but because they involve multiple causes of motion. My interpretation of the Changes are Open, Rests are Closed Rule allows us to make better sense of Aristotle’s argument than any previous interpretation. (shrink)

The Motion-Time Paradox (V-T Paradox) argues that motion and time are inseparably intertwined, forming the backbone of our relatively objective reality, yet neither can be defined without the other, leading to an inescapable logical loop. This paper explores four cases motion defining time, time defining motion, their unity, and their separation all collapsing into contradiction. Motion, tied to materialism, and time, rooted in idealism, undermine both philosophies and dualism itself, as no alternative escapes the circular (...) dependency or self-negation dubbed “ultimate negation.” Facing 33 challenges from physics (e.g., relativity, quantum mechanics), philosophy (e.g., Kant, non-dual metaphysics), and mathematics, the paradox stands unyielding every rebuttal loops back or dissolves. Inexpressible yet irrefutable, V-T smashes foundational assumptions, urging a radical rethinking of reality beyond motion and time. If unanswerable, it questions whether all human knowledge rests on a mystery we’re blind to solve a haunting challenge to science and philosophy alike. (shrink)

This paper is concerned with the senses in which paintings do and do not depict various temporal phenomena, such as motion, stasis and duration. I begin by explaining the popular – though not uncontroversial – assumption that depiction, as a pictorial form of representation, is a matter of an experiential resemblance between the pictorial representation and that which it is a depiction of. Given this assumption, I illustrate a tension between two plausible claims: that paintings do not depict (...) class='Hi'>motion in the sense that video recordings do, and that paintings do not merely depict objects but may depict those objects as engaged in various activities, such as moving. To resolve the tension, I demonstrate that we need to recognise an ambiguity in talk of the appearance of motion, and distinguish between the depiction of motion and the depiction of an object as an object that is moving. Armed with this distinction, I argue that there is an important sense in which paintings depict neither motion, duration, nor – perhaps more controversially – stasis. (shrink)

This article proves that the motion principle of philosophical physics (every thing moved is moved by another) is truly compatible with the inertia principle of mathematical physics (Newton's First Law).

Motion–Difference (MD) 2.1 presents a minimal ontology derived from two co-primitive facts: (1) that the relational configuration does not remain identical to itself (motion), and (2) that the configuration is not perfectly symmetric (difference). From these co-primitives follow a small set of structural consequences: wake (lasting asymmetry), non-erasure (the refusal to posit subtraction machinery), and adjacency (the concrete asymmetries through which subsequent motion must propagate). These entail reinforcement (accumulation of asymmetry), constraint (stable asymmetry structure), and the existence (...) of membranes as maximal closure sets under accumulated asymmetry. Membranes provide the structural basis for form, bounded persistence, and identity, the latter understood as the fixed-point stability of closure classes under recursive alteration. Recursion itself is defined non-temporally, as wake acting on an already altered configuration; time emerges perspectivally from a bounded form’s internal tracking of recursive dependency. MD 2.1 derives these structures without positing substances, substrates, space, time, causation, laws, or essences. It provides the foundation for Lucid Ontology (LO) and The Architecture of Consciousness (AoC) by showing how bounded, self-maintaining forms and perspectival ordering arise solely from motion, difference, and their necessary structural consequences. The result is an ontology of irreducible becoming that is both ontologically austere and derivationally complete. (shrink)

Une argumentation pour l'importance dualiste des émotions dans la société, individuellement et au niveau communautaire. La tendance actuelle à la prise de conscience et au contrôle des émotions grâce à l'intelligence émotionnelle a un effet bénéfique dans les affaires et pour le succès des activités sociales mais, si nous n'y prenons pas garde, elle peut conduire à une aliénation irréversible au niveau individuel et social. L'essai est composé de trois parties principales: Émotions (Modèles d'émotions, Le processus des émotions, La bonheur, (...) La philosophie des émotions, L'éthique des émotions), Intelligence émotionnelle (Modèles d'intelligence émotionnelle, L'intelligence émotionnelle dans la recherche et l'éducation, La philosophie d'intelligence émotionnelle, L'intelligence émotionnelle dans la philosophie orientale) et Intelligence émotionnelle dans les organisations (Travail émotionnel, La philosophie de l'intelligence émotionnelle dans les organisations, La critique de l'intelligence émotionnelle dans les organisations, L'éthique de l'intelligence émotionnelle dans les organisations). Dans les Conclusions, je présente un résumé des déclarations contenues dans le document. SOMMAIRE: Abstract 1. Émotions 1.1 Modèles d'émotion 1.2 Traitement des émotions 1.3 Bonheur 1.4 La philosophie des émotions 1.5 L'éthique des émotions 2. Intelligence émotionnelle 2.1 Modèles d'intelligence émotionnelle 2.1.1 Modèle d'habilités de Mayer et Salovey 2.1.2 Le modèle mixte de Goleman 2.1.3 Le modèle mixte de Bar-On 2.1.4 Modèle de traits de Petrides 2.2 Intelligence émotionnelle dans la recherche et l'éducation 2.3 La philosophie de l'intelligence émotionnelle 2.3.1 L'intelligence émotionnelle dans la philosophie orientale 3. Intelligence émotionnelle dans les organisations 3.1 Travail émotionnel 3.2 La philosophie de l'intelligence émotionnelle dans les organisations 3.3 Critique de l'intelligence émotionnelle dans les organisations 3.4 Éthique de l'intelligence émotionnelle dans les organisations Conclusions Bibliographie DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28567.93600 . (shrink)

The Motion-Time Paradox (M-T) posits that motion and time—two fundamental pillars of knowable reality—are interdependent yet cannot exist independently, creating an inescapable logical loop. This paper analyzes four scenarios regarding their relationship, each revealing inherent contradictions that challenge ideological frameworks such as materialism, idealism, and dualism. The result is the "ultimate negation"—not the annihilation of reality itself, but the collapse of current understandings based on motion and time. Despite facing 14 counterarguments from physics (relativity, quantum mechanics, loop (...) quantum gravity), philosophy (Kant, non-dualism), and mathematics, the M-T paradox remains logically consistent. It poses the question: Is human knowledge reaching a limit that requires a new foundation to transcend? This is an invitation to reshape reality, pointing toward a concept beyond motion and time. (shrink)

This paper introduces the Modal Motion Argument (MMA), a novel metaphysical formulation that combines the classical concept of motion with modal logic frameworks like S5 and S4. Unlike traditional cosmological arguments that often rely on empirical motion and brute causality, MMA approaches the ontology of change through grounding relations and metaphysical necessity. By reconstructing the structure of motion in modal terms and employing the Principle of Sufficient Reason, this argument builds a deductive chain from contingency to (...) necessity without smuggling conceptual possibility. It proposes an unavoidable inference to a metaphysically necessary being who grounds all actuality while being unmoved itself. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on the appetite for self-preservation and its central role in Francis Bacon’s natural philosophy. In the first part, I introduce Bacon’s classification of universal appetites, showing the correspondences between natural and moral philosophy. I then examine the role that appetites play in his theory of motions and, additionally, the various meanings accorded to preservation in this context. I also discuss some of the sources underlying Bacon’s ideas, for his views about preservation reveal traces of Stoicism, Telesian natural (...) philosophy, the natural law tradition, as well as late-scholastic ideas. Bacon assumes the existence of two kinds of preservation: self-preservation and preservation of the whole. The appetite through which the whole preserves itself overpowers individual appetites for self-preservation. In Bacon’s theory of motions, the primacy of global preservation – that is, the preservation of the whole – is evidenced by the way matter resists being annihilated, while self-preservation at a local and particular level is revealed through other kinds of motion. Bacon’s notion of appetite reflects a specific metaphysics of matter and motion, in which the preservation of natural bodies follows teleological patterns shared by both nature and humanity: the preservation of the whole is the highest goal, both in moral and natural philosophy. In this chapter, I argue that in Bacon’s natural philosophy different kind of things, including nature and humans, are ruled by patterns that are constitutive of correlated orders, neither of which is reducible to the other: there is no priority of the natural order over the moral, or vice versa. Thus, at a more general level, both are expressions of the same type of divinely imposed, law-like behaviour. (shrink)

Studies of the Early Modern debate concerning absolute and relative space and motion often ignore the significance of the concept of true motion in this debate. Even philosophers who denied the existence of absolute space maintained that true motions could be distinguished from merely apparent ones. In this paper, I examine Berkeley's endorsement of this distinction and the problems it raises. First, Berkeley's endorsement raises a problem of consistency with his other philosophical commitments, namely his idealism. Second, Berkeley's (...) endorsement raises a problem of adequacy, namely whether Berkeley can provide an adequate account of what grounds the distinction between true and merely apparent motion. In this paper, I argue that sensitivity to Berkeley's distinction between what is true in the metaphysical, scientific, and vulgar domains can address both the consistency and the adequacy problems. I argue that Berkeley only accepts true motion in the scientific and vulgar domains, and not the metaphysical. There is thus no inconsistency between his endorsement of true motion in science and ordinary language, and his metaphysical idealism. Further, I suggest that sensitivity to these three domains shows that Berkeley possesses resources to give an adequate account of how true motions are discovered in natural science. (shrink)

The primary aim of this discussion is to present a detailed case study of Descartes’ use of émotion in Les passions de l’ame and in his early writings leading up to that work. A secondary aim is to argue that while Descartes was innovative in suggesting that émotion might be a better keyword for the affective sciences than passion, he did not consistently follow his own advice. His innovation therefore failed in that regard, even though it did inspire later thinkers (...) to explore the distinction between “passion” and “emotion” in their own manner. (shrink)

In Critique of Pure Reason Kant speaks about motion, as action of the subject in connection with the actions by which we describe a space, such as drawing a line or constructing a circle. In a 1992-paper in Kant-Studien I argued that this is one important piece of textual evidence for the so-called externalist interpretation, according to which the transcendental conditions of experience and indeed all the a priori elements in Kant’s system are public, depending upon overt action. Konstantin (...) Pollok has criticized my reading, arguing that the relevant use of the term “motion” here is just metaphorical, and considering some central Kantian doctrines that he thinks refutes the externalist interpretation. The present paper defends the externalist interpretation against Pollok’s charges. (shrink)

In his essay “Things Do Not Move,” Sengzhao (374?−414 CE), a prominent Chinese Buddhist philosopher, argues for the thesis that the myriad things do not move in time. This view is counter-intuitive and seems to run counter to the Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of emptiness. In this book chapter, I assess Sengzhao’s arguments for his thesis, elucidate his stance on the change/nonchange of things, and discuss related problems. I argue that although Sengzhao is keen on showing the plausibility of the thesis, (...) he actually views the myriad things as both changing and unchanging and upholds the nonduality of motion and rest. In fact, the nonmoving thesis follows from the discernment that things change from moment to moment without there being any enduring stuff in the process. Among philosophical works that confer a higher ontological status on nonchange over change, Sengzhao’s essay is unique and well worth pondering. (shrink)

Aristotle defines motion as such: ‘The fulfillment of what exists potentially, in so far as it exist potentially, is motion.’ (Phy., Γ, 1, 201a10-11) He defines it again in the same chapter: ‘It is the fulfillment of what is potential when it is already fully real and operates not as itself but as movable, that is motion. What I mean by ‘as’ is this: Bronze is potentially a statue. But it is not the fulfillment of bronze as (...) bronze which is motion.’ (Phy., Γ, 1) 2) Motion: not a real thing Aristotle believes that ‘there is no such thing as motion over and above the things’ that is supposed to mean that motion cannot be something else than his categories: ‘It is always with respect to substance or to quality or to quantity or to place that what changes changes. But it is impossible to find anything common to these which is neither ‘this’ not quantum nor quale nor any of the other predicates. Hence neither will motion and change have reference to something over and above the things mentioned, for there is nothing over and above them.’ (Phy., Γ, 1, 200b32-201a3) In fact, it is what is moved that is a reality for Aristotle and not the motion itself: ‘Motion is known because of that which is moved, locomotion because of that which is carried. What is carried is a real thing, the movement is not.’ (Phy., Δ, 11) 3) Three items in each motion Aristotle distinguishes three items in each motion (Phy., E, 4): a) ‘That which’ moves; (Note: It is this item that makes a motion a unitary motion. (Phy., Δ, 11)) e.g. a man or gold b) ‘That in which’ the movement occurs; e.g. a place or an affection c) ‘That during which’ the movement takes place; e.g. time Based on the second item, Aristotle distinguishes three kinds of motion: quantitative, qualitative and local which are in respect of the three categories of quantity, quality and place. (Phy., E, 1) However, Aristotle speaks of four things in respect of which change takes place adding substance to the three mentioned categories. (Phy., Γ, 1, 200b32-35) It seems it is based on the differentiation of that in which motion takes place in these four types that Aristotle distinguishes four kinds of motion. (Phy., Γ, 1, 201a11-15): a) Alteration: the motion of what is alterable qua alterable b) Increase and decrease: the motion of what can be increased and what can be decreased c) Coming to be and passing away: the motion of what come to be and pass away d) Locomotion: the motion of what can be carried away Alteration happens in qualities, increase and decrease in quantities, coming to be and passing away in substances and locomotion in place. 4) Problem of motion as an element Discussing why Pythagoreans put motion in their column of indefinites, Aristotle somehow hints to the problem of understanding motion due to its non-elemental character: ‘The reason why they put motion into these genera is that it is thought to be something indefinite and the principles in the second column are indefinite because they are privative: none of them is either ‘this’ or ‘such’ or comes under any of the other modes of predication. The reason in turn why motion is thought to be indefinite is that it cannot be classed simply as a potentiality or as an actuality- a thing that is merely capable of having a certain size is not undergoing change, nor yet a thing that is actually of a certain size, and motion is thought to be a sort of actuality, but incomplete. The reason for this view being that the potential whose actuality it is is incomplete. This is why it is hard to grasp what motion is. It is necessary to class it with privation or with potentiality or with sheer actuality, yet none of these seems possible. There remains then the suggested mode of definition, namely that it is a sort of actuality, or actuality of the kind described, hard to grasp, but not incapable of existing.’ (Phy., Γ, 2, 201b24-) It becomes a real difficulty when it is asked whether the motion is in the mover or in the movable: ‘The solution of the difficulty that is raised about the motion-whether it is in the movable- is plain. It is the fulfillment of this potentiality, and by the action of that which has the power of causing motion; and the actuality of that which has the power of causing motion is not other than the actuality of the movable, for it must be the fulfillment of both. A thing is capable of causing motion because it can do this, it is a mover because it actually does it. But it is on the movable that it is capable of acting. Hence there is a single actuality of both alike, just as one to two and two to one are the same interval, and the steep ascent and the steep descent are one- for these are one and the same, although they can be described in different ways. So it is with the mover and the moved.’ (Phy., Γ, 3) This is not, however, the solution: ‘This view has a dialectical difficulty. Perhaps it is necessary that the actuality of the agent and that of the patient should not be the same. The one is ‘agency’ and the other ‘patiency’; and the outcome and the completion of the one is an ‘action’, that of the other a ‘passion.’ Since then they are both motions, we may ask: in what are they, if they are different? Either (a) both are in what is acted on and moved, or (b) the agency is in the agent and the patiency in the patient. … Now in alternative (b), the motion will be in the mover, for the same statement will hold of ‘mover’ and ‘moved.’ Hence either every mover will be moved, or, through having motion, it will not be moved. If on the other hand (a) both are in what is moved and acted on- both the agency and the patiency (e.g. both teaching and learning, though they are two, in the learner), then, first, the actuality of each will not be present in each, and, a second absurdity, a thing will have two motions at the same time. How will there be two alterations of quality in one subject towards one definite quality? The thing is impossible: the actualization will be one.’ (Phy., Γ, 3) This leads Aristotle to another problem, the problem of one identical actualization for two different things: ‘But (someone will say) it is contrary to reason to suppose that there should be one identical actualization of two things which are different in kind. Yet there will be, if teaching and learning are the same, and agency and patiency. To teach will be the same as to learn, and to act the same as to be acted on- the teacher will necessarily be learning everything that he teaches, and the agent will be acted on. One may reply: (1) It is not absurd that the actualization of one thing should be in another. Teaching is the activity of a person who can teach, yet the operation is performed on some patient- it is not cut adrift from a subject, but is of A on B. (2) There is nothing to prevent two things having one and the same actualization, provided the actualizations are not described in the same way, but are related as what can act on what is acting. (3) Nor is it necessary that the teacher should learn, even if to act and to be acted on are one and the same, provided they are not the same in definition (as ‘raiment’ and ‘dress’), but are the same merely in the sense in which the road from Athens to Thebes are the same, as has been explained above.’ (Phy., Γ, 3) And he continues: ‘For it is not things which are in a way the same that have all their attributes the same, but only such as have the same definition. But indeed it by no means follows from the fact that teaching is the same as learning, that to learn is the same as to teach, any more than it follows from the fact there is one distance between two things which are at a distance from each other, that the two vectors AB and BA, are one and the same. To generalize, teaching is not the same as learning, or agency and patiency, in the full sense, though they belong to the same subject, the motion; for the ‘actualization’ of X in Y’ and the ‘actualization of Y through the actualization of X’ differ in definition.’ (Phy., Γ, 3) . (shrink)

This paper argues that time and motion are ontologically identical as aspects of change: what physics calls “time” is a parameterization of motion rather than an independent entity. Drawing on phenomenology (Kant, Husserl, McTaggart), cognitive science, and physics (Einstein, Rovelli), it distinguishes lived temporality—dependent on consciousness—from the causal order of events, which exists without it. Historically, the split between time and motion (from Aristotle to Newton) reflects a conceptual error; by reframing time as a perspectival map of (...) motion, the paper aligns Leibniz’s relational view with modern theories of emergent time in quantum gravity. This unified framework challenges temporal realism and offers a phenomenological reinterpretation of change for both philosophy and physics. (shrink)

After reporting in detail Aristotle’s texts and comments on the well-known motion paradoxes Arrow, Dichotomy, Achilles and Stadium, tracking back to the 5th century BCE and credited by Aristotle to Zeno of Elea, we next explain and dis-cuss traditional continuous solutions of the paradoxes, based on Cauchy’s limit concept. Afterward, the heated philosophical debate on supertasks and infinity machines is reported before the paradoxes are examined within the context of modern quantum theory. Already in 1905, Einstein concluded that matter (...) could not be a continuous thing. Classical continuous spacetime is replaced by ‘granular’ spacetime, and the concept of distance in granular spacetime is discussed. This is followed by a detailed presentation of modern discrete solutions in granular spacetime, several of which are published here for the first time. Finally, a procedure is presented to determine when traditional continuous methods suffice instead of discrete methods, and the handling of discrete versus continuous in physics is briefly reported. (shrink)

This preliminary version has been superseded. Its foundational discussion has been extended and rigorously reconstructed in the paper Being as Relating Ⅰ: Reconstructing a Cosmos without "Objectivity", which offers a systematic analysis of time, space, and physical phenomena from the premise of ‘being’. The link now points to this definitive work.

In this paper, I argue for two main theses. The first is that Spinoza held that space was not an independently existing thing such as absolute space. This creates a problem for his account of individuation. The second thesis is that he can solve this problem by appealing to another doctrine he accepted, that there is absolute motion. I conclude that Spinoza was among the first early modern figures to reject absolute space but accept absolute motion.

Modern philosophy of physics debates whether motion is absolute or relative. The debate began in the 1600s, so it deserves a close look here. Primarily, it was a controversy in metaphysics, but it had epistemic aspects too. I begin with the former, and then touch upon the latter at the end.

A plausible reading of Berkeley’s view of voluntary motion is occasionalism; this, however, leads to a specious conclusion against his argument of human action. Differing from an unqualified occasionalist reading, I consider the alternative reading that Berkeley is a conservationist regarding bodily motion by the human mind at will. That is, finite minds (spirits) immediately cause motions in their body parts, albeit under the divine conservation. My argument then comports with the conservationist reading from three perspectives: (i) theodicy (...) that the human mind is held liable for sinful actions; (ii) an account of the human mind influencing other minds; and (iii) an improper but necessary directing principle of the human mind. This article is a stepping stone to grasping why the conservationist reading is more coherent than the occasionalist one. (shrink)

We study the acceleration and collisions of rigid bodies in special relativity. After a brief historical review, we give a physical definition of the term ‘rigid body’ in relativistic straight line motion. We show that the definition of ‘rigid body’ in relativity differs from the usual classical definition, so there is no difficulty in dealing with rigid bodies in relativistic motion. We then describe The motion of a rigid body undergoing constant acceleration to a given velocity.The acceleration (...) of a rigid body due to an applied impulse.Collisions between rigid bodies. (shrink)

This paper introduces a hypothesis that reinterprets the relationship between motion and time. We propose that all objects possess an intrinsic capacity for instantaneous motion between two points, occurring "out of time," and that observed travel time results from discrete "stops" induced by external forces. Using thought experiments involving a photon and a marble, we illustrate this concept and explore its potential implications for classical mechanics, special relativity, and quantum phenomena. This perspective suggests motion is inherently timeless, (...) with time arising as a consequence of interruptions, offering a new lens on the fundamental dynamics spanning classical laws to quantum effects. While lacking a fully developed mathematical foundation, this framework offers a novel perspective on velocity, time, and quantum superposition, suggesting avenues for future theoretical and experimental investigation. We emphasize its conceptual nature and the need for rigorous development to elevate it from hypothesis to theory, inviting researchers to explore its intriguing possibilities. (shrink)

Physics research has resulted in categories of phenomena and the present theoretical framework in physics of the microcosm, the Standard model, describes a number of fundamental building blocks: elementary particles and elementary forces. It “smells” like classic phenomenological physics so it is difficult to understand how this exhibit of phenomena can be transformed into a unified theory. But there is another way to think about motion, particles and their distinct properties.

Forces mediate the differences between local amounts of energy in the universe at all scale sizes and determine the direction of the motion of energy configurations. But forces are not always easy to identify and to describe in a com­prehensive explan­atory model.

Margaret Cavendish (1623-1673) argues that when someone throws a ball, their hand does not cause the ball to move. Instead, the ball moves itself. In this chapter, I reconstruct Cavendish’s argument that material things—like the ball—are self-moving. Cavendish argues that body-body interaction is unintelligible. We cannot make sense of interaction in terms of the transfer of motion nor the more basic idea that one body acts in another body. Assuming something moves bodies around, Cavendish concludes that bodies move themselves. (...) Still, Cavendish needs to explain why bodies appear to causally interact even if they do not really. Balls do not usually throw themselves without a helping hand. I offer a new reading of the way bodies respond to their external circumstances in terms of prerequisites or enabling conditions. (shrink)

Dans la formulation classique habermassienne du modèle délibératif, les arguments doivent être justifiés d’une façon rationnelle, reliant logiquement des raisons à des conclusions. Sur la base de données empiriques, il est montré que les histoires personnelles ont également un rôle à jouer pour une bonne délibération, créant l’empathie à l’égard des besoins des autres. Plus généralement, les émotions ne devraient pas être exclues de la délibération.

This paper offers a reconstruction of the interpretations of Descartes's ideas of place and motion by Dutch Cartesians (Henricus Regius, Johannes de Raey, Johannes Clauberg, and Christoph Wittich). It does so by focusing on the reading of Descartes's Principia philosophiae (1644) offered, in particular, by the dictated commentaries on it. It is shown how such commentaries bring to the light new potential Aristotelian-Scholastic sources of Descartes, and the different ways Dutch Cartesians brought to the fore, also with the help (...) of such sources, the rationale of the Cartesian text: in doing so, they constituted a philosophical school. (shrink)

Spacetime and motion are interconnected concepts. A better understanding of motion leads to a better understanding of spacetime. We use the historical critical analysis of the various theoretical proposals on motion in search of clues ignored. The prediction of the general relativity that the motion occurs in the static gravitational field is not valid because the motion always occurs in a given medium as vacuum, atmosphere, water, etc. The concept of motion and the equations (...) of the special and general relativity, as the theory of Galilee-Newton reduce motion elements to particle and spacetime. In this paper, we present the medium (in special, the quantum vacuum), as the third essential element of motion, inseparable of spacetime since it is its material support of which the spacetime is its structural form, and we analyse its consequences in the theories of spacetime. Our contribution is declare, that the spacetime itself does not exist, or is a relational property of matter, but a structural property of matter. (shrink)

This paper examines Descartes' problematic relational theory of motion, especially when viewed within the context of his dynamics, the Cartesian natural laws. The work of various commentators on Cartesian motion is also surveyed, with particular emphasis placed upon the recent important texts of Garber and Des Chene. In contrast to the methodology of most previous interpretations, however, this essay employs a modern "spacetime" approach to the problem. By this means, the role of dynamics in Descartes' theory, which has (...) often been neglected in favor of kinematic factors, is shown to be central to finding a solution to the puzzle of Cartesian motion. (shrink)

Now entertain bold conjecture on the time of an instant and the problem of motion, when setting the rational endeavour of modern physics, with a focus on Bohr's complementarity, before the logical challenge of ancient paradox, specifically Zeno's Flying Arrow, and so for demonstrating and developing the philosophical power of reason over such combinatory reflection as may thereby yield novel scientific insight. By addressing the arrow argument precisely on its own logical terms, and by adaptively applying a core principle (...) of quantum mechanical theory, the study purposes to identify the basic spatial and temporal conditions for the possibility of motion, across the realms of little atoms to large arrows, that are to be recognised by any scientific theory of motion. In laying the basis for such physical theory, the reasoning engages with the pertinent thought of influential philosophers, mathematicians and physicists, both past and present, hence drawing the ‘common science’ issue of an emphatic quantitative mindset into the identification of a Kantian-style antinomy of the pure quantum instant. As may serve the current conundrum of quantum gravity, with so many conflicting conceptions of space, time and motion dividing the canonical, covariant and other approaches – here is thus posed the challenge of a fundamentally qualitative instant of motion. (shrink)

Cross cultural studies have played a pivotal role in elucidating the extent to which behavioral and mental characteristics depend on specific environmental influences. Surprisingly, little field research has been carried out on a fundamentally important perceptual ability, namely the perception of biological motion. In this report, we present details of studies carried out with the help of volunteers from the Mundurucu indigene, a group of people native to Amazonian territories in Brazil. We employed standard biological motion perception tasks (...) inspired by over 30 years of laboratory research, in which observers attempt to decipher the walking direction of point-light (PL) humans and animals. Do our effortless skills at perceiving biological activity from PL animations, as revealed in laboratory settings, generalize to people who have never before seen representational depictions of human and animal activity? The results of our studies provide a clear answer to this important, previously unanswered question. Mundurucu observers readily perceived the coherent, global shape depicted in PL walkers, and experienced the classic inversion effects that are typically found when such stimuli are turned upside down. In addition, their performance was in accord with important recent findings in the literature, in the abundant ease with which they extracted direction information from local motion invariants alone. We conclude that the effortless, veridical perception of PL biological motion is a spontaneous and universal perceptual ability, occurring both inside and outside traditional laboratory environments. (shrink)

Nature, according to Cavendish, has “an Infinite Natural power, that is, a power to produce infinite effects in her own self, by infinite changes of Motions” (OEP II.XIV: 220). While Cavendish mentions powers with respect to human beings, medicines, occasional causes, and other entities, these powers are really just the power of self-moving matter to cause changes in the world. This paper examines why Cavendish attributes the power self-motion to matter, what this power is, how it arose, how it (...) is enacted, and its limitations. In doing so, I discuss her views on causation, perception, and motion, and argue that motion is not reducible to change in mereological facts. (shrink)

This study undertakes a profound exploration of the conceptual convergences among Mulla Sadra’s doctrine of al-ḥarakat al-jawhariyya (substantial motion), Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, and contemporary quantum ontology, aiming to forge a novel metaphysical synthesis that bridges Islamic philosophy with modern philosophy of science. Through an intricate comparative and conceptual analysis, it argues that Sadra’s dynamic ontology of becoming offers a robust framework for interpreting Whitehead’s processual metaphysics while simultaneously providing a unique lens to address interpretive challenges in quantum (...) mechanics, such as wave function collapse, quantum entanglement, and superposition. By meticulously identifying shared ontological commitments to flux, relationality, and emergence, this paper proposes substantial motion as a unifying metaphysical paradigm that transcends cultural and disciplinary boundaries. This interdisciplinary endeavor not only fosters a cross-cultural dialogue but also contributes to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the nature of being in a quantum world, inviting philosophers to reconsider the foundations of reality through a processual lens. (shrink)

The geometric arrangement of planet and moon is the result of a self-organizing system. In our solar system, the planets and moons are constantly orbiting around the sun. The aim of this theory is to compare the motion of a solar system with the motion of water droplet when poured into a water body. The basic methodology is to compare both motions to know how they are related to each other. The difference between both systems will be that (...) one is extremely fast, and the other is extremely slow. The role of this theory is that by looking at the fast system we can conclude how slow the system will get to an end. Just like ripples are formed around water droplet that move away from the droplet and water droplet forming those ripples become small in size will tell us how solar system will behave in the same way. So it is concluded that large and small systems can work under the same process but with different motions of time, and motion of the solar system is the slowest form of water droplet motion. (shrink)