Aristotle’s Understanding of Place

Abstract

The Thomist 67 (2003): 439-62 ARISTOTLE'S UNDERSTANDING OF PLACE THOMAS R. LARSON St. Anselm College Manchester, New Hampshire I THE NOTION OF "PLACE" is central to Aristotle's understanding of the motions of inanimate natural bodies. According to Aristotle, "the energeia of a light body is to be in a place, and up; and it is prevented whenever it is in a contrary place" (Physics 255b11-13).1 He states further that "it is the nature of [heavy and light bodies] each to be at a certain place, and to be light and to be heavy is just this, specifically, to be up in the case of the light or to be down in the case of the heavy" (255b16ff). It is vital therefore that we rightly understand what Aristotle means by "place," and how he sees place functioning as a principle of motion in nature. We must ask, for example, how a "place" can be the final cause and actuality (energeia) of a natural body. What does it really mean for a natural body, such as fire, to be in potency to a specific place, such as "up"? What is it about "up" that makes it the natural place for fire? Such questions, moreover, must be answered in a manner consistent with Aristotle's overall philosophy of nature. In order to come to grips with the notion of place and its role in natural motion, I will examine Aristotle's discussion of place as it is found in Physics 6.1-5. My goal here is to extract Aristotle's 1 Unless otherwise noted, I use Aristotle's Physics, trans. with commentary and glossary by Hippocrates G. Apostle (Grinnell, Iowa: The Peripatetic Press, 1980) as a basis for the translations I provide: 439 440 THOMAS R. LARSON principled understanding of place. Only after examining and properly understanding Aristotle's notion of place can we accurately judge its role in natural motion. In presenting my understanding of Aristotle's doctrine, I wm chaHenge the arguments that Helen S. Lang has offered on these questions. Lang contends that Aristotle's concept of nature is essentially tied to an understanding of place according to which it serves both as a principle of order the universe and as the actuality, and hence the cause of m0tion, of inanimate bodies. She daims that absolute immobility is the most important feature of Aristotle's notion of place. In my judgment, Lang's interpretation of place conflicts both with the texts of Aristotle and with Aristotle's overall natural philosophy, According to Lang, place is itself a cause of order in the universe, a formal constituent that renders the whole universe ordered and determinate, and hence is like a formal cause; yet Aristotle states explicitly that place cannot be a formal cause. Lang's daims require that place exist prior to and independent of bodies; as I will show, however, according to Aristotle's principled argument, place can in no way be taken as prior to or independent of natural bodies" Lang also daims that ..respective proper place is the actuality and hence the mover of each element": as an actuality, place serves as a final cause, and as a mover, it serves as an efficient cause. Yet Aristotle explicitly states that place is neither a final nor an efficient cause" How a place, by itself, can be the actuality of an element is never adequately addressed by Lang. Nor does she ever articulate her understanding of "actuality," I wiH argue that her account of place illicitly abstracts from the natural bodies that constitute place. Lang further argues that "intrinsic directionality" and absolute immobility of the cosmos are inseparable from Aristotle's natural philosophy in general. To remove absolute directionality from Aristotle's physics (that is, to say that "up" and "down" are relative, and have no absolute natural ground), Lang suggests, would be to annihilate Aristotle's understanding of nature. I ARISTOTLE'S UNDERSTANDING OF PLACE 441 argue that such daims are not supported by Aristotle's texts, or by his overall natural philosophy. After my criticism of Lang, I shall present and defend James A. Weisheipl's analysis of place in Aristotle...