-
Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages (review)
- Journal of the History of Philosophy
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Volume 26, Number 1, January 1988
- pp. 145-146
- 10.1353/hph.1988.0000
- Review
- Additional Information
- Purchase/rental options available:
BOOK REVIEWS ~45 bear little trace of Aristotelian influence. But can the same be said for the Stoic theory of phantasia, which the author argues bypasses Aristotle in the attempt to solve epistemological problems raised by Plato (21-23)? On this question, the reader should also consult Inwood's compelling case for an Aristotelian background to the Stoic theory (above, 9-17). In the chapter on ethics (24-3o), the range of sources discussed seems far too narrow to support the sweeping generalization: "I believe that all attempts to see Stoic ethics as a development from Aristotelian or Peripatetic thought have been unsuccessful" (30). I find the discussion of possible sources for Stoic physical doctrines far more persuasive and detailed. In the end, Sandbach has made a strong case that Aristotelian influence upon the Stoics is often greatly overestimated. All students of Hellenistic philosophy will profit from this timely and unorthodox essay. ROBERT J. RABEL University of Kentucky James A. Weisheipl, O.P. Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages. Edited by William E. Carroll. Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, Vol. 11. Washington , D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1985. Pp. xii + 292. $31.95. Although most of the essays~here collected have been published elsewhere, this volume is still a fitting memorial to its late author. James A. Weisheipl was a staunch defender of continuity in the development of scientific thought, and his arguments for this position gain force when displayed in connected sequence. The arrangement proceeds from a general discussion of the concept of Nature, through more particular considerations of crucial issues in the understanding of motion, to a re-generalization of the evolution of modern science. The most difficult of the essays is the first, "The Concept of Nature," where Weisheipl uses a specifically Aquinian interpretation of Aristotle to establish his thesis that "Aristotle did not explain natural motion by the constant exerted efficiency of a mover, as is often thought." While the argument is cogent and well-documented, many readers will wonder whether the interpretation is not wholly that of Aquinas; indeed, in some passages Weisheipl leaves the impression that St. Thomas's version of Aristotle is the original version. There were moments when I found it hard to believe that Weisheipl knew Aristotle in Greek, for example. Certainly this is not a result of sloppy scholarship; it is a consequence of Weisheipl's mastery of Aquinas. Nevertheless, arguments based on interpretations of Latin terms are not wholly convincing to the linguistic purist. The essay purports to be a clarification of the views of Aristotle; I would call it a clarification of the Aristotle of Aquinas. As such, however, it is of considerable value to the historian of scientific thought, and when taken with the following essays makes up a very plausible defense of continuity in philosophical orientation, if not in scientific practice. Weisheipl's point that mathematical physics is not and cannot be the whole of "natural philosophy" is well-taken. His argument for the continuing importance of natural philosophy (as opposed to metaphysics or the current variety of philosophy of science) may not convince committed opponents, but it is worthy of careful consideration. 146 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 26:1 JANUARY 1988 In addition to these major issues, several secondary themes are notable. "Galileo and the Principle of Inertia," a previously unpublished paper, includes a concise summary of the changing historiography from Whewell through Stillman Drake, marked by a concern for the continuist position that is nevertheless objective in its evaluation of opposing views. For example, Weisheipl displays great respect here and elsewhere for the scholarship of Anneliese Maier, even though she concluded that there was no possible connection between medieval and "modern" science. Perhaps the strongest, and possibly the most familiar of Weisheipl's essays on motion is "The Principle Orane quodmoveturab alio movetur in Medieval Physics," which argues that the standard interpretation of this famous thesis derives from Averroes, a conclusion supported in following essays. The two concluding papers, "The Evolution of Scientific Method," and "Medieval Natural Philosophy and Modern Science," are effective statements of Weisheipl's major theses, the continuity of scientific thought and...