Intermediate parts of motion according to Ramon LlullSome remarks about his medieval background

  1. José Higuera Rubio 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Revista:
Revista española de filosofía medieval

ISSN: 1133-0902

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 29

Número: 1

Páginas: 17-32

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.21071/REFIME.V29I1.15088 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista española de filosofía medieval

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Following Aristotle, Averroes rejects atomism and the infinite division of geometric lines. Thus, his arguments deal with the continuity and contiguity of the non-atomic parts of motion. He vindicates the perceptual aspect of physical movement that shows itself like in-progress-path between two edge points A and B, in which there are middle parts where qualitative, local, or quantitative changes occur. Ramon Llull takes the lines’ geometrical points as “motion parts”. Points are intermediate divisions that represent physical phenomena by the continuity of geometrical lines, surfaces, and figures. Also, he appeals to relational logic to spot the middle parts between A and B into the in-progress-path of mo-tion. Those middle parts are signified by a dynamic vocabulary, called: correlative language. This contri-bution focuses on the conceptual environment of Llull’s assumptions, in which Averroes’ Latin readers explored the geometry and the vocabulary of motion intermediate parts.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ackrill, John Lloyd, “Aristotle’s Distinction between Energeia and Kinesis”, in New Essays on Plato and Aristotle, edited by R. Bambrough (London and New York: Routledge, 1965), 212-141.
  • Albertus Magnus, Physica 4/1, edited by T. Marschler, Editio Coloniensis (Münster: Aschendorff, 2015).
  • Aristotle, Physica, edited by F. Bossier, J. Brams and A. Mansion, Aristoteles Latinus 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1990).
  • Aristotle, Metaphysica, edited by G. Vuillemin-Diem, Aristoteles Latinus 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1995).
  • Averroes, Commentarium magnum in Aristotelis De physico auditu libri octo, in Aristotelis Omnia quae extant Opera... Averrois Cordubensis in ea Omnes... Commentarii, vol. 4 (Venice: Giunta, 1552; repr. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1962).
  • Averroes, Commentum magnum super libro De celo et mundo Aristotelis, vol. 2, edited by R. Arnzen (Leuven: Peteers, 2003).
  • Avicenna, Sufficientia, in Auicene perhypatetici philosophi... Sufficientia, De celo mundo, De anima, De animalibus, De intelligentiis, Philosophia prima…, Caecilius Fabrianensis, (Venice 1508).
  • Avicenna, Liber primus naturalium, edited by S. Riet, J. Janssens and A. Allard, Avicenna Latinus 10 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006).
  • Baldner, Steven, “Albertus Magnus and the Categorization of Motion”, The Thomist 70, 2 (2006): 203-235.
  • Bostock, David, Space, Time, Matter and Form: Essays on Aristotle’s Physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).
  • Burnyeat, Myles F., “Kinēsis vs. energeia: A much-read passage in (but not of) Aristotle’s Metaphysics”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 34 (2008): 219-292.
  • Coope, Ursula, “Self-motion as Other-motion in Aristotle’s Physics”, in Aristotle’s Physics: A Critical Guide, edited by M. Leunissen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 245-264.
  • Glasner, Ruth, Averroes’ Physics: A Turning Point in Medieval Natural Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)
  • Harvey, Steven, “The Hebrew Translation of Averroes’ Prooemium to His ‘Long Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics’”, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 52 (1985): 55-84.
  • Jean of Jandun, Quaestiones super octo libros physicorum Aristotelis (Venice: 1551; reimpr. Minerva 1964).
  • Lohr, Charles, “Ramon Lull’s Theory of the Quantification of Qualities”, in Constantes y fragmentos del pensamiento luliano, edited by F. Domínguez and J. de Salas (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1996), 9-17.
  • Lohr, Charles, “Ramon Llull’s Theory of the Continuous and Discrete”, in Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, edited by Ch. Lüthy, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 75-89.
  • Maier, Anneliese, “Forma Fluens oder Fluxus Formae?”, in Zwischen Philosophie und Mechanik (Rome: Edizioni di Storia et Letteratura, 1958), 3-57.
  • McGinnis, Jon, “A Medieval Arabic Analysis of Motion at an Instant: the Avicennian Sources to the Forma fluens/fluxus formae Debate”, The British Journal for the History of Science 39, 2 (2006): 1-17.
  • Ramon Llull, Ars generalis ultima, edited by A. Madre, ROL XIV (Turnhout: Brepols, 1986).
  • Ramon Llull, Arbor scientiae I, edited by P. Villalba, ROL XXIV (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000).
  • Rosen, Jacob, “Physics v–vi versus viii: Unity of Change and Disunity in the Physics”, in Aristotle’s Physics: A Critical Guide, edited by M. Leunissen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 206-224.
  • Rubio, Josep Enric, “The Art”, in Raimundus Lullus. An Introduction to his Life, Works and Thought, edited by A. Fidora and J. E. Rubio, Supplementum Lullianum II (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), 252-282.
  • Ryle, Gilbert, Dilemmas (Cambridge: CUP, 1966).
  • Sorabji, Richard, “Aristotle on the Instant of Change”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 50 (1976): 69-89.
  • Thomas Aquinas, In octo libros physicorum Aristotelis expositio, edited by M. Maggiòlo (Turin: Marietti, 1954).
  • Trifogli, Cecilia, Oxford Physics in the Thirteenth Century (ca. 1250-1270): Motion, Infinity, Place, and Time (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000).
  • Trifogli, Cecilia, “The Reception of Averroes’ View on Motion in the Latin West”, in Averroes’ Natural Philosophy and its Reception in the Latin West, edited by P. Bakker (Leuven: LUP 2015), 127-140.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet