0

What do these passages mean, could someone please kindly clarify them.

‘Motion is the pure change of place affecting a this which remains otherwise unaltered as is shown clearly enough by our assumption of the homogeneity of space.’ P286

‘Motion has the exact value of a fact; it participates wholly in the complete contingency of being and must be accepted as a given.’ P286

Motion becomes a relation so external to being… From this point of view motion appears neither as a being nor as a mode of being but as an entirely desubstantialized relation. P287

'This appears evident if we admit that motion is superimposed on being and that consequently nothing comes to decide whether being is in motion or at rest. In a word, if motion is an accident of being motion and rest are indistinguishable.' P287 This is on the Eleatic Paradox of the arrow.

P290 ‘Motion has no more of being; it is the least-being of a being which can neither arrive nor be abolished nor wholly be.’

Improve this question
6
  • That's quite a few different quotes. Maybe ask one question about the ones about motion and one question about the ones about anger separately?
    – virmaior
    Aug 10, 2019 at 12:55
  • Hmm good suggestion; I might try that.
    – Prince Deepthinker
    Aug 10, 2019 at 13:00
  • sounds like existential phenomenology... used to embodiment more than abstract and authenticity based questions about myself. difficult out of its literary context, but you might try identifying something with or that is motion, and then deciding if you agree with the quote and why (or if you know enough philosophy why not). e.g. the 1st quote seems to say that motion itself is not a change, because space is homogeneous.
    – user38026
    Aug 10, 2019 at 15:45
  • The thing is I am not sure what these passages even mean; how can I even start to discern these descriptions in my experience before I have understood them conceptually.
    – Prince Deepthinker
    Aug 11, 2019 at 2:39
  • 1
    A hint. Start from the very first chapters of BaN, where Sartre says that a single phenomenon implies an infinite series of phenomena in potentiality. Rather then a particular phenomenon appears as based on the existent particular being, the essence, phenomenon appears as a member in a chain of mate phenomena. From this pow, the flying arrow, to be "flying" implies at every moment its start, trajectory, and target from the very beginning in a form which edges convolute in infinity. That will make you better understand the pages you are on.
    – ttnphns
    Aug 11, 2019 at 10:00

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .