According to Aristotelian physics

A vacuum, or void, is a place free of everything, and Aristotle argued against the possibility.

Void doesn't seem to be the Parmenidian Non-Being. It still has Place.

Aristotle believed that the speed of an object's motion is proportional to the force being applied (or the object's weight in the case of natural motion) and inversely proportional to the viscosity of the medium; the more tenuous a medium is, the faster the motion.

And it then follows

that objects moving in a void, could move indefinitely fast

which is an argument against Void as Aristotle held that infinites could not be obtained in actuality.

and thus, the objects surrounding a void would immediately fill it before it could actually form.

However, it also seems to be true, if we suppose that Void is the Parmenidian Non-Being, that the object has no-where to move to. So it cannot move.

Hence, for an object to move it must be immersed in Being - the simplest such is pure Place; and therefore pure Place has Being.

Theres probably a lot wrong with this argument, but I find it interesting.

My proper question is What is the referent for Parmenidian Being? One suspects it must tie in with this world here.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.