[go: up one dir, main page]
Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    On the Heavens
    On the Heavens
    On the Heavens
    Ebook133 pages

    On the Heavens

    By Aristotle

    3.5/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    "On the Heavens" is a work by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, in which he explores the nature and properties of the celestial bodies, including the stars and planets. The book is divided into four sections, each of which provides a detailed analysis of different aspects of the heavens. Throughout "On the Heavens," Aristotle employs a systematic and logical approach to his subject matter, drawing on empirical observations and careful reasoning to arrive at his conclusions. The result is a work that provides a comprehensive and detailed account of the nature and properties of the heavens, as well as a foundation for later astronomical inquiry.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherInteractive Media
    Release dateJun 23, 2016
    ISBN9781911495055
    Author

    Aristotle

    Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher and scientist whose works have profoundly influenced philosophical discourse and scientific investigation from the later Greek period through to modern times. A student of Plato, Aristotle’s writings cover such disparate topics as physics, zoology, logic, aesthetics, and politics, and as one of the earliest proponents of empiricism, Aristotle advanced the belief that people’s knowledge is based on their perceptions. In addition to his own research and writings, Aristotle served as tutor to Alexander the Great, and established a library at the Lyceum. Although it is believed that only a small fraction of his original writings have survived, works such as The Art of Rhetoric, Nicomachean Ethics, Poetics, and Metaphysics have preserved Aristotle’s legacy and influence through the ages.

    Read more from Aristotle

    Related authors

    Related to On the Heavens

    Titles in the series (100)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      The Philosophy of Ancient Greece

      Feb 28, 2020

      The Philosophy of Ancient Greece
      11 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Ethical Dilemma

      Oct 29, 2018

      Ethical Dilemma
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      He Makes Tadpoles With Eyes on Their Tails. Could That One Day Help Solve Birth Defects in Humans?

      Jan 2, 2018

      Biologist Michael Levin manipulates electric currents to make odd creatures like tadpoles with eyes on their tails. Could his experiments one day lead to medical cures?

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Great Morality Scam

      Jul 30, 2018

      The Great Morality Scam
      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      What Love Meant in 4500 B.C.

      Feb 21, 2022

      What Love Meant in 4500 B.C.
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      This Philosopher Helped Ensure There Was No Nobel for Relativity: Henri Bergson’s debate with Albert Einstein reached and swayed the 1921 Nobel committee.

      Apr 21, 2016

      On April 6, 1922, Einstein met a man he would never forget. He was one of the most celebrated philosophers of the century, widely known for espousing a theory of time that explained what clocks did not: memories, premonitions, expectations, and antic

      12 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Computer Creates Anew Life Form

      Nov 18, 2020

      Computer Creates Anew Life Form
      7 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Why Science Needs Metaphysics: Science can’t tell us whether science explains everything.

      Oct 1, 2015

      Technology cannot keep pace with theoretical predictions about subatomic reality coming from physics. The same applies to our ability to observe the far reaches of the universe. Theory outstrips data and can become more extravagant with the claims it

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Self In Time

      Apr 22, 2019

      The Self In Time
      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      What If We All Learned To Think In Paragraphs?

      Nov 29, 2021

      As a philosophy professor, Jonathan Jacobs wants his students to think deeply – but not just about the ideas of Kant, Descartes, or Nietzsche. They need to be able to articulate their own thoughts in nuanced ways, he says. So he pushes first-year stu

      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Human Energy

      Apr 19, 2021

      Human Energy
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Infinite Energy

      Apr 19, 2021

      Infinite Energy
      11 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Looking Back In Time

      Mar 17, 2021

      Nigel Warburton: You’ve spent a huge amount of your life looking at space. There’s a very famous quotation from Immanuel Kant, that’s even on his gravestone. “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often an

      15 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Are We Living In A Multiverse?

      Jan 26, 2023

      Are We Living In A Multiverse?
      8 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Physicist Aims To Kill Time

      Nov 17, 2021

      Physicist Aims To Kill Time
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Mystery of Time’s Arrow

      Apr 4, 2019

      As conscious beings, we are constantly aware of the relentless march of time. You can make an egg into an omelet, but you can’t turn an omelet back into an egg. Dropped glasses shatter and do not reassemble themselves. Above all, we age and become de

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Set Your Alarm Clock

      Oct 29, 2018

      Set Your Alarm Clock
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Strangeness of Black Holes

      Apr 11, 2019

      This essay is one of the five winners in the 2019 writing competition held by the Black Hole Initiative at Harvard University. “The Black Hole Initiative offers a unique environment for thinking about the topic of black holes more creatively and comp

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Mystery of Time’s Arrow: Past and future may not be what they seem.

      Jan 30, 2014

      As conscious beings, we are constantly aware of the relentless march of time. You can make an egg into an omelet, but you can’t turn an omelet back into an egg. Dropped glasses shatter and do not reassemble themselves. Above all, we age and become de

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Where Did Time Come From, and Why Does It Seem to Flow?

      Jan 28, 2014

      Paul Davies has a lot on his mind—or perhaps more accurate to say in his mind. A physicist at Arizona State University, he does research on a wide range of topics, from the abstract fields of theoretical physics and cosmology to the more concrete rea

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Interview With The Author Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

      Apr 22, 2021

      How much do we know about the Universe? In theory, we know what the Universe is made of, that all matter-energy content is ‘normal’ matter, dark matter or dark energy. But ‘normal’ is only about four per cent of the total matter-energy content, and t

      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Life Is a Braid in Spacetime: How to See Yourself in a World Where Only Math Is Real.: How to see yourself in a world where only math is real.

      Jan 9, 2014

      “Excuse me, but what’s the time?” I’m guessing that you, like me, are guilty of having asked this question, as if it were obvious that there is such a thing as the time. Yet you’ve probably never approached a stranger and asked “Excuse me, but what’s

      7 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Vastness Of Outer Space

      Mar 17, 2021

      The Vastness Of Outer Space
      4 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for On the Heavens

    3.5/5

    10 ratings2 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 5/5
      Even if I didn't think this was great reading (and I do) it would be an essential book for the powerful influence (some would say stranglehold, and say it justly) it had on culture and science for two millenia. I doubt Aristotle would have agreed to becoming dogma.
    • 2/5
      A fairly straightforward Aristotelian text. I felt it wasn't as great as some of his others.

    Book preview

    On the Heavens - Aristotle

    cover.jpg

    Aristotle

    On the Heavens

    Published by The Big Nest

    This edition first published in 2016

    Copyright © 2016 The Big Nest

    All Rights Reserve

    ISBN: 9781911495055

    Contents

    BOOK I

    BOOK II

    BOOK III

    BOOK IV

    BOOK I

    Part 1

    The science which has to do with nature clearly concerns itself for the most part with bodies and magnitudes and their properties and movements, but also with the principles of this sort of substance, as many as they may be. For of things constituted by nature some are bodies and magnitudes, some possess body and magnitude, and some are principles of things which possess these. Now a continuum is that which is divisible into parts always capable of subdivision, and a body is that which is every way divisible. A magnitude if divisible one way is a line, if two ways a surface, and if three a body. Beyond these there is no other magnitude, because the three dimensions are all that there are, and that which is divisible in three directions is divisible in all. For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an ‘all’, and the number they give is the triad. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the Gods. Further, we use the terms in practice in this way. Of two things, or men, we say ‘both’, but not ‘all’: three is the first number to which the term ‘all’ has been appropriated. And in this, as we have said, we do but follow the lead which nature gives. Therefore, since ‘every’ and ‘all’ and ‘complete’ do not differ from one another in respect of form, but only, if at all, in their matter and in that to which they are applied, body alone among magnitudes can be complete. For it alone is determined by the three dimensions, that is, is an ‘all’. But if it is divisible in three dimensions it is every way divisible, while the other magnitudes are divisible in one dimension or in two alone: for the divisibility and continuity of magnitudes depend upon the number of the dimensions, one sort being continuous in one direction, another in two, another in all. All magnitudes, then, which are divisible are also continuous. Whether we can also say that whatever is continuous is divisible does not yet, on our present grounds, appear. One thing, however, is clear. We cannot pass beyond body to a further kind, as we passed from length to surface, and from surface to body. For if we could, it would cease to be true that body is complete magnitude. We could pass beyond it only in virtue of a defect in it; and that which is complete cannot be defective, since it has being in every respect. Now bodies which are classed as parts of the whole are each complete according to our formula, since each possesses every dimension. But each is determined relatively to that part which is next to it by contact, for which reason each of them is in a sense many bodies. But the whole of which they are parts must necessarily be complete, and thus, in accordance with the meaning of the word, have being, not in some respect only, but in every respect.

    Part 2

    The question as to the nature of the whole, whether it is infinite in size or limited in its total mass, is a matter for subsequent inquiry. We will now speak of those parts of the whole which are specifically distinct. Let us take this as our starting-point. All natural bodies and magnitudes we hold to be, as such, capable of locomotion; for nature, we say, is their principle of movement. But all movement that is in place, all locomotion, as we term it, is either straight or circular or a combination of these two, which are the only simple movements. And the reason of this is that these two, the straight and the circular line, are the only simple magnitudes. Now revolution about the centre is circular motion, while the upward and downward movements are in a straight line, ‘upward’ meaning motion away from the centre, and ‘downward’ motion towards it. All simple motion, then, must be motion either away from or towards or about the centre. This seems to be in exact accord with what we said above: as body found its completion in three dimensions, so its movement completes itself in three forms.

    Bodies are either simple or compounded of such; and by simple bodies I mean those which possess a principle of movement in their own nature, such as fire and earth with their kinds, and whatever is akin to them. Necessarily, then, movements also will be either simple or in some sort compound-simple in the case of the simple bodies, compound in that of the composite-and in the latter case the motion will be that of the simple body which prevails in the composition. Supposing, then, that there is such a thing as simple movement, and that circular movement is an instance of it, and that both movement of a simple body is simple and simple movement is of a simple body (for if it is movement of a compound it will be in virtue of a prevailing simple element), then there must necessarily be some simple body which revolves naturally and in virtue of its own nature with a circular movement. By constraint, of course, it may be brought to move with the motion of something else different from itself, but it cannot so move naturally, since there is one sort of movement natural to each of the simple bodies. Again, if the unnatural movement is the contrary of the natural and a thing can have no more than one contrary, it will follow that circular movement, being a simple motion, must be unnatural, if it is not natural, to the body moved. If then (1) the body, whose movement is circular, is fire or some other element, its natural motion must be the contrary of the circular motion. But a single thing has a single contrary; and upward and downward motion are the contraries of one another. If, on the other hand, (2) the body moving with this circular motion which is unnatural to it is something different from the elements, there will be some other motion which is natural to it. But this cannot be. For if the natural motion is upward, it will be fire or air, and if downward, water or earth. Further, this circular motion is necessarily primary. For the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, and the circle is a perfect thing. This cannot be said of any straight line:-not of an infinite line; for, if it were perfect, it would have a limit and an end: nor of any finite line; for in every case there is something beyond it, since any finite line can be extended. And so, since the prior movement belongs to the body which naturally prior, and circular movement is prior to straight, and movement in a straight line belongs to simple bodies-fire moving straight upward and earthy bodies straight downward towards the centre-since this is so, it follows that circular movement also must be the movement of some simple body. For the movement of composite bodies is, as we said, determined by that simple body which preponderates in the composition. These premises clearly give the conclusion that there is in nature some bodily substance other than the formations we know, prior to them all and more divine than they. But it may also be proved as follows. We may take it that all movement is either natural or unnatural, and that the movement which is unnatural to one body is natural to another-as, for instance, is the case with the upward and downward movements, which are natural and unnatural to fire and earth respectively. It necessarily follows that circular movement, being unnatural to these bodies, is the natural movement of some other. Further, if, on the one hand, circular movement is natural to something, it must surely be some simple and primary body which is ordained to move with a natural circular motion, as fire is ordained to fly up and earth down. If, on the other hand, the movement of the rotating bodies about the centre is unnatural, it would be remarkable and indeed quite inconceivable that this movement alone should be continuous and eternal, being nevertheless contrary to nature. At any rate the evidence of all other cases goes to show that it is the unnatural which quickest passes away. And so, if, as some say, the body so moved is fire, this movement is just as unnatural to it as downward movement; for any one can see that fire moves in a straight line away from the centre. On all these grounds, therefore, we may infer with confidence that there is something beyond the bodies that are about us on this earth, different and separate from them; and that the superior glory of its nature is proportionate to its distance from this world of ours.

    Part 3

    In consequence of what has been said, in part by way of assumption and in part by way of proof, it is clear that not every body either possesses lightness or heaviness. As a preliminary we must explain in what sense we are using the words ‘heavy’ and ‘light’, sufficiently, at least, for our present purpose: we can examine the terms more closely later, when we come to consider their essential nature. Let us then apply the term ‘heavy’ to that which naturally moves towards the centre, and ‘light’ to that which moves naturally away from the centre. The heaviest thing will be that which sinks to the bottom of all things that move downward, and the lightest that which rises to the surface of everything that moves upward. Now, necessarily, everything which moves either up or down possesses lightness or heaviness or both-but not both relatively to the same thing: for things are heavy and light relatively to one another; air, for instance, is light relatively to water, and water light relatively to earth. The body, then, which moves in a circle cannot possibly possess either heaviness or lightness. For neither naturally nor unnaturally can it move either towards or away from the centre. Movement in a straight line certainly does not belong to it naturally, since one sort of movement is, as we saw, appropriate to each simple body, and so we should be compelled to identify it with one of the bodies which move in this way. Suppose, then, that the movement is unnatural. In that case, if it is the downward movement which is unnatural, the upward movement will be natural; and if it is the upward which is unnatural, the downward will be natural. For we decided that of contrary movements, if the one is unnatural to anything, the other will be natural to it. But since the natural movement of the whole and of its part of earth, for instance, as a whole and of a small clod-have one and the same direction, it results, in the first place, that this body can possess no lightness or heaviness at all (for that would mean that it could move by its own nature either from or towards the centre, which, as we know, is impossible); and, secondly, that it cannot possibly move in the way of locomotion by being forced violently aside in an upward or downward direction. For neither naturally nor unnaturally can it move with any other motion but its own, either itself or any part of it, since the reasoning which applies to

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1