(October 26, 2021 at 9:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Maybe to keep the conversation going, I could start with this little chunk:
"First, it equivocates between logical and causal dependence, as Sir David Ross points out in his commentary on Physics 242a 38: ‘the motion of the whole logically implies the motion of the part, but is not necessarily causally dependent on it’. (Ross, p. 669).
Whether or not the above works as a defeater depends, again, on the definition of motion. If he means physical motion, then yes, parts, like steering wheels, move with the rest of a car. But if motion, in the Scholastic sense means “substantial change” then no, he isn’t presenting a defeater.
I disagree. "the motion of the whole logically implies the motion of the part, but is not necessarily causally dependent on it" is true, even when we're talking "motion" in the Aristotelian sense, is it not?