Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Honoré Fabri and the Concept of Impetus: A Bridge between Paradigms pp 67–78Cite as

Criticizing Aristotle

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 424 Accesses

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 288))

Abstract

This chapter describes Fabri’s harsh criticism towards Aristotle’s philosophy of natural motion, expressed by a total rejection of levity as an absolute property of matter (thus reducing natural motion to free fall alone); by invalidating the rules Aristotle had formulated concerning falling bodies and directly blaming him for failing to examine accelerated motion; and finally by ascribing natural motion to an inner cause (rather than Aristotle’s external one). Then Fabri’s own conception concerning this matter is outlined: having shown that natural motion demands an inner cause, Fabri establishes impetus as this cause.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Motus localis naturalis est, qui est a gravitate deorsum” (Fabri 1646, lib. 2, def. 1, p. 74).

  2. 2.

    Lukens 1979, p. 143, n. 3.

  3. 3.

    “Propositio XXVIII: Omne corpus est grave gravitate absoluta… Immo ostendam infra, nullam dari levitatem absolutam; & vero, ut dicam quod res est, in iis quae pertinent ad gravium, non tam accuratus fuit Aristoteles, quam aliquis forte desideraret, in quo sane multae falsitatis a Galilaeo convictus est” (Fabri 1669–1671, tr. 1, lib. 4, prop. 28, p. 254).

  4. 4.

    “Venio ad Atistotelem, qui multis in locis nobis aperte favet, scil. lib. 4, ph. c. 9, lib. 8, c. 7, lib. 3, de caelo c. 1. ubi dicit grave et leve idem esse quod densum & rarum; lib. 3. de caelo, cap. 2. asserit aera aptum esse gravem & levem” (Fabri 1669–1671, tr. 1, lib. 4, prop. 62, p. 267). Aristotle’s remark, identifying “heavy” with “dense” and “light” with “rare”, is indeed hard to understand within his general scheme, according to which the terms “heavy” and “light” imply natural movements towards or away from the center (On the Heavens [Aristotle 1953], 1, 3, 269b23–24).

  5. 5.

    “Equidem fateor Aristotelem nonnulla de gravitate scripsisse, quae manifestis repugnant experimentis & rationibus; v.g. ex duobus corporibus inaequalibus, eiusdem materiae, & figurae, maius velocius descendere; ex duobus aequalibus, sed diversa materiae, gravius in ea proportione velocius descendere, in qua est gravius; idem grave per diversa media, in ea proportione descendere, in qua unum medium alio densius est. Sed haec falsa esse omnino, iam alibi demontravimus. Porro discedere ab Aristotele, si quando vel manifestum experimentum, vel evidens ratio cogit nullum vitium est, & vero multa dicit, quibus vel divina fides adversatur… vel manifesta ratio, & experientia” (Fabri 1669–1671, tr. 1, lib. 4, prop. 62, pp. 267–268).

  6. 6.

    “Huic sententiae authores non desunt. Magnus Archimedes ad instar omnium esse posset; nempe ille primus gravitatis principia ponderavit; huic accedit Galileus, in libro quem de innantibus inscripsit, cui adde successorem Torricellum…” (Fabri 1669–1671, tr. 1, lib. 4, prop. 62, p. 267).

  7. 7.

    “Quandoquidem motus, qui in eadem linea perficitur, similes plane includit ubicationes successive acquisitas, sive ascensus sit, sive descensus, ordine tantum in earum adeptione, commutato. Quare cum ascensus a descensu hoc uno differat, quod quam ubicationem lapis demum obtineret post alias prope finem motus… ad ordinem hunc permutandum non videtur necessaria virtutis motricis dissimilitudo; nihil quippe producitur dissimile…” (Casati 1684, lib. 1, cap. 2, pp. 11–12); quoted in Feldhay and Even Ezra, “Gravity and Levity in the 17th Century: A Jesuit Perspective” (forthcoming in the Max Planck Institute for History of Science Preprint Series). Casati further concludes that owing to the fact that there is no substantial difference between levity and gravity – both are a result of an interaction between the stone and its environment – we might as well reject gravity instead of levity; it should be added that although Casati’s Mechanicorum libri was published in 1684, it was actually based on a course given at the Collegio Romano in the early 1650s (ibid.).

  8. 8.

    See Hellyer 2003, pp. 30–32.

  9. 9.

    “A solid heavier than a fluid will, if placed in it, descend to the bottom of the fluid, and the solid will, when weighed in the fluid, be lighter than its true weight by the weight of the fluid displaced”; Archimedes 1953, p. 258. The volume of the fluid displaced is equal, of course, to the volume of the immersed body.

  10. 10.

    “Medium grave detrahit eam partem gravitationis corporis gravioris, quae est aequalis suae gravitationi. v. g. si medii gravitas est subdupla, detrahit subduplum gravitationis; si subdecupla, subdecuplum, atque ita deinceps; hoc iam olim supposuit magnus Archim. supponunt etiam reliqui omnes, praesertim recentior Galileus” (Fabri 1646, lib. 2, th. 86, p. 119).

  11. 11.

    See also Moody 1951, pp. 170–171.

  12. 12.

    Galilei 1960, p. 16. Galileo, as we can easily discern from the First Day of the Two New Sciences, never abandoned this general view. The crucial difference between his De motu and Two New Sciences concerns motion in a vacuum; see Damerow et al. 2004, pp. 269–270.

  13. 13.

    See Gaukroger and Schuster 2002, pp. 542–550.

  14. 14.

    “Sub medium levius corpus grave descendit… ratio porro petitur ex ipsa gravitatis natura, qua corpus grave tendit deorsum… quis enim neget corpus grave ideo descendere sub levius, ut occupet aliquem locum quo prius carebat, qui tamen illi connaturalis est in hoc rerum ordine?” (Fabri 1646, lib. 2, th. 80, p. 117).

  15. 15.

    It should be mentioned, however, that Fabri does not accept Galileo’s analysis of the resistance which a body encounters while passing through a medium. For example, Fabri rejects Galileo’s (valid) assertion that a body which falls through a material medium eventually ceases to accelerate and continues with a terminal velocity (see Lukens 1979, pp. 207–210).

  16. 16.

    “Definitio 2: Motus aequabilis est, quo aequalibus quibuscunque temporibus aequalia percurruntur spatia ab eodem mobili; Definitio 3: Motus naturaliter acceleratus est, quo secundo tempore aequali primo maius spatium acquiritur, & tertio, quam secundo, & quarto quam tertio, atque ita deinceps; nulla scilicet addita vi ab extrinseco saltem sensibiliter” (Fabri 1646, lib. 2, defs. 2, 3, p. 74). Lukens’s translation (Lukens 1979, p. 143).

  17. 17.

    For Fabri’s conception of “hypothesis” see Chapter 2 above.

  18. 18.

    “Corpus grave cadit deorsum, & cadens ex maiori altitudine maiorem ictum infligit quam si caderet ex minore” (Fabri 1646, lib. 2, hyp. 1, p. 74).

  19. 19.

    Fabri 1646, lib. 2, hyps. 2, 3, p. 75.

  20. 20.

    Fabri 1646, lib. 2, th. 4, p. 80.

  21. 21.

    Fabri 1646, lib. 2, th. 1, p. 76. Lukens’s translation and emphasis (Lukens 1979, p. 147).

  22. 22.

    Fabri 1646, lib. 2, th. 1, p. 77. For a full discussion concerning the issue of magnetic force see Lukens 1979, pp. 148–150.

  23. 23.

    “Quarto, motus naturalis non est a virtute quadam pellente, quam caelo quidam affingunt; nam vel ab omni parte caeli deorsum truderetur, vel ab una; si ab una; igitur in omni caeli plaga corpus non fertur deorsum; si ab omni, ergo cum pellatur corpus per plures lineas etiam oppositas moveri non potest” (Fabri 1646, lib. 2, th. 1, p. 78). Assuming that the pushing force is simply directed radially, towards the center of the earth, would be begging the question.

  24. 24.

    Lukens 1979, p. 150, n. 23.

  25. 25.

    Principles of Philosophy, part IV, art. 23, in Descartes 1984–1985, vol. I, p. 269.

  26. 26.

    Tannery et al. 1945–1988, vol. XV, p. 210; translation copied (with some changes) from Dugas 1958, p. 190, n. 3.

  27. 27.

    “Quinto, aliqui recentiores existimant corpora deorsum trudi ab ipsa luce… sed neque hoc probari potest. Primo quia de nocte corpora aequali motu deorsum feruntur; perinde atque de die, nec minus in obscurissimo conclavi, quam sub dio, vel aperto caelo; Secundo, in subterraneis locis etiam gravia aeque velociter descendunt; licet eo lumen non penetret” (Fabri 1646, lib.2, th. 1, p. 78).

  28. 28.

    “Sexto, sunt denique multi, iique ex severioribus Peripateticis, qui existimant gravia moveri deorsum a generante, quod expressis verbis traditum est ab Aristotele l. 8. phys. cap. 4. iuxta principium illud universalissimum: Quidquid movetur, ab alio movetur; sed profecto ii ipsi, qui motum gravium generanti tribuunt, tanquam principi causae, non negant inesse gravibus gravitatem, quae sit principium activum minus principale motus; ad quem etiam, ut ipsi existimant, forma substantialis concurrit; In hoc quippe conveniunt omnes tum sectarum Principes, tum recentiores: quidquid sit etiam ex iis ipsis datur motus naturalis, qui est a virtute proxima intrinseca; hoc ipsum etiam sensit Aristoteles lib.4. de caelo cap. 3. t. 25. ubi ait gravibus & levibus inesse principium activum suorum motuum; immo si totum cap. 4. l.8. phys. attente legatur, ubi dicit moveri a generante, haud dubie intelligetur nihil aliud intendisse Aristotelem quam gravia a generante, instanti, quo generantur, accipere actum primum huius motus; id est virtutem, a qua possint reduci ad actum secundum, id est ad ipsum motum, de cuius rei veritate iam mihi non est laborandum” (Fabri 1646, lib. 2, th. 1, p. 79).

  29. 29.

    Physics [Aristotle 1930], 8, 4, 255a1.

  30. 30.

    Physics [Aristotle 1930], 2, 1, 192b22; my emphasis; see Chapter 1 above.

  31. 31.

    Physics [Aristotle 1930], 8, 4, 255a5.

  32. 32.

    Physics [Aristotle 1930], 8, 4, 255b15.

  33. 33.

    Physics [Aristotle 1930], 8, 4, 255a23–30 and b30.

  34. 34.

    Physics [Aristotle 1930], 8, 4, 256a1.

  35. 35.

    Physics [Aristotle 1930], 8, 4, 255b25.

  36. 36.

    Physics [Aristotle 1930], 7, 1, 241b24.

  37. 37.

    Blum 1999, pp. 243–244; see also http://Section 19.4 below.

  38. 38.

    On the Heavens [Aristotle 1953], 1, 2, 268b28.

  39. 39.

    The notion of a “second actuality” as a “higher”, or “more actual”, manifestation of a “first actuality” (or a “habit”) is prevalent in mainstream scholastics, especially in the writings of Thomas Aquinas; Lang 2002, p. 578.

  40. 40.

    Namely, gravity (or heaviness), in Fabri’s terminology.

  41. 41.

    The creator of a body, which forms within it this “innate impetus”.

  42. 42.

    (The “aforementioned axiom” is quidquid movetur ab alio movetur.) “Utrum vero, quidquid movetur, ab alio moveatur, vel immutetur, controversia esse potest, cum pro parte affirmante faciat authoritas Aristotelis; pro negante vero manifestae experientiae demonstrent, idem a se ipso aliquando moveri; quis enim neget lapidem, qui deorsum ruit, moveri a se?… Quod vero spectat ad gravia, quae deorsum eunt, consideravit tantum Aristoteles impetum innatum, quo primum moventur, vel gravitant, qui est a generante; nec enim consideravit motum acceleratum, quem forte ab aere esse putavit, ac proinde non multum de illo laboravit, ut praedictum illud suum axioma probaret” (Fabri 1648, lib. 7, prop. 15, pp. 273–274).

  43. 43.

    See On the Heavens [Aristotle 1953], 3, 2, 301b17–30.

  44. 44.

    “Tertio reiicies, qui volunt motum accelerari ex aeris a tergo impellentis appulsu, quod ridiculum est: licet enim Aristoteles videatur illud sensisse de projectis, quod examinabimus suo loco; nunquam tamen hoc dixit de motu naturali” (Fabri 1646, lib. 2, th. 61, cor. 3, p. 97).

  45. 45.

    “Igitur omissis omnibus illis excusationibus; dicam potius parum curandum in hoc negotio, de mente Aristotelis, quem plerique ex illustrissimis Philosophis, in hoc deserunt; itaque primo certum est, aliquid a se ipso moveri posse localiter; ut videre est, in gravibus; nec ullam rationem afferri posse, qua contrarium probetur” (Fabri 1648, lib. 7, prop. 15, p. 274).

  46. 46.

    “Quare breviter tantum indico ex quatuor motibus, vel mutationibus corporum, quas recenset Aristoteles, quae sunt latio, rarefactio, alteratio, generatio, unicam tantum esse, scilicet primam, in qua pronunciatum illud non valeat, quidquid movetur, ab alio movetur” (Fabri 1648, lib. 7, prop. 15, p. 274).

  47. 47.

    “Igitur non movetur corpus grave a causa prima… nec ab aere, nec a virtute magnetica… nec a caelo pellente, nec a vi sympathica, nec a generante proxime & immediate… nec ab ullo alio extrinseco, ut constat inductione; igitur ab aliqua vi intrinseca, quidquid sit, de qua alibi” (Fabri 1646, lib. 2, th. 1, p. 79).

References

  • Archimedes. 1953. The Works of Archimedes (trans: Heath, T.L.). New York, NY: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1930. Physics (trans: Hardie, R.P. and Gaye, R.K.). In The Works of Aristotle, 12 Vols., eds. W.D. Ross and J.A. Smith, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1953. On the Heavens (trans: Guthrie, W.K.C.). London: William Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, Paul Richard. 1999. Aristotelianism more geometrico: Honoré Fabri. In Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Conversations with Aristotle, ed. Constance Blackwell, 234–247. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casati, Paolo. 1684. Mechanicorum libri octo, in quibus uno eodemque principio vectis vires phyice explicantur & geometrice demonstrantur, atque machinarum omnis generis componendarum methodus proponitu. Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damerow, Peter, Gideon Freudenthal, Peter McLlaughlin, and Jürgen Renn. 2004. Exploring the Limits of Preclassical Mechanics. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, René. 1984–1985. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (trans: Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D.), 2 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugas, Réné. 1958. Mechanics in the Seventeenth Century. Neuchatel: Griffon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabri, Honoré. 1646. Tractatus physicus de motu locali, in quo effectus omnes, qui ad impetum, motum naturalem, violentum, & mixtum pertinent, explicantur, & ex principiis physicis demonstrantur; auctore Petro Mousnerio Doctore Medico; cuncta excerpta ex praelectionibus R. P. Honorati Fabry, Societatis Iesu. Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabri, Honoré. 1648. Metaphysica demonstrativa, sive scientia rationum universalium; auctore Petro Mousnerio Doctore Medico; cuncta excerpta ex praelectionibus R. P. Hon. Fabry soc. Iesu. Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabri, Honoré. 1669–1671. Physica, id est scientia rerum corporearum, in decem tractatus distributa; auctore Honorato Fabri, soc. Iesu. Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldhay, Rivka, and Ayelet Even Ezra. Gravity and Levity in the 17th Century: A Jesuit Perspective. (Forthcoming in the Max Planck Institute for History of Science Preprint Series).

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei, Galileo. 1960. On Motion, and On Mechanics (ed. and trans: Drabkin, I.E., and Drake, S.). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei, Galileo. 1989. Two New Sciences (trans: Drake, S.). Toronto: Wall & Emerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaukroger, Stephen, and John Schuster. 2002. The Hydrostatic Paradox and the Origins of Cartesian Dynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 33:535–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellyer, Marcus. 2003. The Construction of the Ordinatio pro studiis superioribus of 1651. Archivium Historicum Societatis Jesu 72:3–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, David P. 2002. Aquinas and Suárez on the Essence of Continuous Physical Quantity. Laval théologique et philosophique 58(3):565–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukens, David C. 1979. An Aristotelian Response to Galileo: Honoré Fabri, S.J. (1608–1688) on the Causal Analysis of Motion. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, Annaliese. 1982. On the Threshold of Exact Science: Selected Writings of Anneliese Maier on Late Medieval Natural Philosophy (ed. and trans: Sargent, S.D.). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moody, Ernest A. 1951. Galileo and Avempace: The Dynamics of the Leaning Tower Experiment I. Journal of the History of Ideas 12(2):163–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannery, Paul, Cornélis De Waard, and Bernard Rochot. (eds.). 1945–1988. Correspondance du P. Marin Mersenne religieux Minime, 17 Vols. Paris: G. Beauchesne.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Boltzmannstrasse 22, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Michael Elazar

Authors
  1. Michael Elazar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Elazar .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Elazar, M. (2011). Criticizing Aristotle. In: Honoré Fabri and the Concept of Impetus: A Bridge between Paradigms. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 288. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1605-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation