Movatterモバイル変換

Epicurus’ original version of atomism takes atoms to be physically indivisible but not completely unanalysable: each atom contains a finite number of minima. This paper explores the nature of the minima by focusing on a specific question: in which sense are the minima minimal? I do so by investigating the notions of parthood and divisibility into parts that are at play in paragraphs 56–59 of the Letter to Herodotus, where the theory of minima is introduced. By focusing on the analogy (...) (noticed by Francesco Verde) between Epicurean minima and Aristotelian limits, I argue that the minima should be understood as the minimal realiser of the atom’s physical functions. This allows me to keep together two very plausible but apparently incompatible claims: (i) the minima are supposed to block the paradoxes of theoretical divisibility, but (ii) their existence and their indivisibility can only be justified in physical (rather than geometrical) terms. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Graduate Papers from the 2022 Joint Session. It is often said that Aristotle takes geometrical objects to be absolutely unmovable and unchangeable. However, Greek geometrical practice does appeal to motion and change, and geometers seem to consider their objects apt to be manipulated. In this paper, I examine if and how Aristotle’s philosophy of geometry can account for the geometers’ practices and way of talking. First, I illustrate three different ways in which Greek geometry appeals to change. Second, I examine (...) Aristotle’s ontology of geometrical objects and argue that although the truth-makers of geometrical statements are in fact unmovable because they are properties of sensible objects, geometers ‘separate them in thought’ and treat them as substances apt to be modified. Finally, I examine whether allowing for the possibility of manipulating these semi-fictional geometrical individuals creates problems for the applicability of geometry. I find that it does not, insofar as one accepts that geometry is not meant to track physical change but merely to study the instantaneous geometrical configuration of sensible bodies, and is thus only applicable at the instant. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

As Professor of Theoretical Medicine for Surgeons at Padua University between 1824 and 1849, Giacomini achieved a position of great academic professionalism and prestige, not only in Padua, but throughout Italy and Europe. His fundamental medical thesis became part of the established field of medical practise that existed into the first decades of the 19th century. This thesis, derived directly from a vitalistic concept of biological phenomena, was based on the existence of a 'life force' that is distinct from the (...) forces of physical-chemistry, having its own specific laws, contrary to those of physical-chemistry. Using this concept Giacomini was able to distinguish two causes of death: mechanical illness and dynamic illness. The nosographic and therapeutic beliefs of Giacomini were based on his distinction between the 'mechanical' or 'dynamic' effects of drugs. Giacomini's medical philosophy is the result of an interweaving of scientific theories and metaphysical ideas. The merits and limits of this philosophy must be analysed in the light of modern epistemology to explain why Giacomini was unable to develop fully clinical anatomy. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark