by Aristotle
6 · But since a motion appears to have contrary to it not only another motion but also a state of rest, we must determine how this is so. A motion has for its [25] contrary in the unqualified sense another motion, but it also has for an opposite a state of rest (for rest is the privation of motion and the privation of anything may be called its contrary), and motion of one kind has for its opposite rest of that kind, e.g. local motion has local rest. This statement, however, needs further qualification: there remains the question, is the opposite of remaining at a particular place motion from or motion to that place? It is surely clear that since there are two subjects [30] between which motion takes place, motion from one of these to its contrary has for its opposite remaining there, while the reverse motion has for its opposite remaining in the contrary. At the same time these two are also contrary to each other; for it would be absurd to suppose that there are contrary motions and not opposite states [230a1] of rest. States of rest in contraries are opposed. To take an example, a state of rest in health is contrary to a state of rest in disease, and the motion to which it is contrary is that from health to disease. For it would be absurd that its contrary motion should be that from disease to health, since motion to that in which a thing is at rest is [5] rather a coming to rest, or at any rate the coming to rest is found to come into being simultaneously with the motion; and one of these two motions it must be. And rest in whiteness is not contrary to rest in health.
Of all things that have no contraries there are opposite changes (viz. change from the thing and change to the thing, e.g. change from being and change to being), but no motion. So, too, of such things there is no remaining though there is absence of change. Should there be a particular subject, absence of change in its [10] being will be contrary to absence of change in its not-being. And here a difficulty may be raised: if what is not is not a particular something, what is it that is contrary to absence of change in a thing’s being? and is this absence of change a state of rest? If it is, then either it is not true that every state of rest is contrary to a motion or else coming to be and ceasing to be are motion. It is clear then that, since we exclude [15] these from among motions, we must not say that this absence of change is a state of rest: we must say that it is similar to a state of rest and call it absence of change. And it will have for its contrary either nothing or absence of change in the thing’s not-being, or the ceasing to be of the thing; for such ceasing to be is change from it and the thing’s coming to be is change to it.
Again, a further difficulty may be raised. How is it that whereas in local change both remaining and moving may be natural or unnatural, in the other [20] changes this is not so? e.g. alteration is not now natural and now unnatural; for convalescence is no more natural or unnatural than falling ill, whitening no more natural or unnatural than blackening; so, too, with increase and decrease: these are not contrary to each other in the sense that either of them is natural while the other [25] is unnatural, nor is one increase contrary to another in this sense; and the same account may be given of becoming and perishing: it is not true that becoming is natural and perishing unnatural (for growing old is natural), nor do we observe one becoming to be natural and another unnatural. We answer that if what happens under violence is unnatural, then violent perishing is unnatural and as such contrary [30] to natural perishing. Are there then also some becomings that are violent and not ordained, and are therefore contrary to natural becomings, and violent increases and decreases, e.g. the rapid growth to maturity of profligates and the rapid [230b1] ripening of corn when not packed close in the earth? And how is it with alterations? Surely just the same: we may say that some alterations are violent while others are natural, e.g. patients alter naturally or unnaturally according as they throw off [5] fevers on the critical days or not. But then we shall have perishings contrary to one another, not to becomings. And, why should not this in a sense be so? Thus it is so if one is pleasant and another painful: and so one perishing will be contrary to another not in an unqualified sense, but in so far as one has this quality and the other that.
Generally, then, motions and states of rest exhibit contrariety in the manner [10] described above, e.g. upward to downward, these being instances of local contrariety; and upward locomotion belongs naturally to fire and downward to earth, and the locomotions of the two are certainly contrary to each other. And again, fire moves up naturally and down unnaturally; and its natural motion is certainly contrary to its unnatural motion. Similarly with remaining: remaining above is [15] contrary to motion from above downwards, and to earth this remaining comes unnaturally, this motion naturally. So the unnatural remaining of a thing is contrary to its natural motion, just as we find a similar contrariety in the motion of the same thing: one of its motions, the upward or the downward, is natural, the other [20] unnatural.
Here, however, the question arises, has every state of rest that is not permanent a becoming, and is this becoming a coming to a standstill? If so, there must be a becoming of that which is at rest unnaturally, e.g. of earth at rest above; and therefore this earth during that time that it was being carried violently upward was [25] coming to a standstill. But whereas the velocity of that which comes to a standstill seems always to increase, the velocity of that which is carried violently seems always to decrease: so it will be in a state of rest without having become so. Moreover coming to a standstill seems to be identical or at least concomitant with the locomotion of a thing to its proper place.
There is also another difficulty involved in the view that remaining in a particular place is contrary to motion from that place. For when a thing is moving [30] from or discarding something, it still appears to have that which is being discarded, so that if this state of rest is contrary to the motion from here to its contrary, the contraries will simultaneously belong to the same thing. May we not say, however, that in so far as the thing is still stationary it is in a state of rest in a qualified sense, and in general that whenever a thing is in motion, part of it is at the starting-point [231a1] while part is at the goal to which it is changing? And consequently a motion finds its contrary rather in another motion than in a state of rest.
With regard to motion and rest, then, we have now explained in what sense each of them is one and under what conditions they exhibit contrariety.
[5] [With regard to coming to a standstill the question may be raised whether there is an opposite state of rest to unnatural as well as to natural motions. It would be absurd if this were not the case; for a thing may remain still merely under violence: thus we shall have a thing being in a non-permanent state of rest without having become so. But it is clear that it must be the case; for just as there is unnatural motion, so, too, a thing may be in an unnatural state of rest. Further, [10] some things have a natural and an unnatural motion, e.g. fire has a natural upward motion and an unnatural downward motion: is it, then, this or the motion of earth that is contrary? For the earth naturally moves downwards. Surely it is clear that both are contrary to it though not in the same sense: the natural motion of earth is contrary inasmuch as the motion of fire is also natural, whereas the upward motion [15] of fire as being natural is contrary to the downward motion of fire as being unnatural. The same is true of the corresponding cases of remaining. But there would seem to be a sense in which a state of rest and a motion are opposites.]38
BOOK VI
1 · Now if the terms ‘continuous’, ‘in contact’, and ‘in succession’ are understood as defined above—things being continuous if their extremities are one, in contact if their extremities are together, and in succession if there is nothing of their own kind intermediate between them—nothing that is continuous can be composed of indivisibles: e.g. a line cannot be composed of points, the line being continuous and the point indivisible. For the extremities of two points can neither be [25] one (since of an indivisible there can be no extremity as distinct from some other part) nor together (since that which has no parts can have no extremity, the extremity and the t
hing of which it is the extremity being distinct).
Moreover, if that which is continuous is composed of points, these points must be either continuous or in contact with one another: and the same reasoning applies [30] in the case of all indivisibles. Now for the reason given above they cannot be continuous; and one thing can be in contact with another only if whole is in contact [231b1] with whole or part with part or part with whole. But since indivisibles have no parts, they must be in contact with one another as whole with whole. And if they are in contact with one another as whole with whole, they will not be continuous; for that which is continuous has distinct parts, and these parts into which it is divisible are [5] different in this way, i.e. spatially separate.
Nor, again, can a point be in succession to a point or a now to a now in such a way that length can be composed of points or time of nows; for things are in succession if there is nothing of their own kind intermediate between them, whereas intermediate between points there is always a line and between nows a period of time.
Again, they could be divided into indivisibles, since each is divisible into the [10] parts of which it is composed. But, as we saw, no continuous thing is divisible into things without parts. Nor can there be anything of any other kind between; for it would be either indivisible or divisible, and if it is divisible, divisible either into indivisibles or into divisibles that are always divisible, in which case it is continuous. [15]
Moreover, it is plain that everything continuous is divisible into divisibles that are always divisible; for if it were divisible into indivisibles, we should have an indivisible in contact with an indivisible, since the extremities of things that are continuous with one another are one and are in contact.
The same reasoning applies equally to magnitude, to time, and to motion: either all of these are composed of indivisibles and are divisible into indivisibles, or none. This may be made clear as follows. If a magnitude is composed of indivisibles, [20] the motion over that magnitude must be composed of corresponding indivisible motions: e.g. if the magnitude ABC is composed of the indivisibles A, B, C, each corresponding part of the motion DEF of Z over ABC is indivisible. Therefore, since where there is motion there must be something that is in motion, and where there is [25] something in motion there must be motion, therefore the being-moved will also be composed of indivisibles. So Z traversed A when its motion was D, B when its motion was E, and C similarly when its motion was F. Now a thing that is in motion from one place to another cannot at the moment when it was in motion both be in motion and at the same time have completed its motion at the place to which it was in motion (e.g. if a man is walking to Thebes, he cannot be walking to Thebes and at [30] the same time have completed his walk to Thebes); and, as we saw, Z traverses the partless section A in virtue of the presence of the motion D. Consequently, if Z [232a1] actually passed through A after being in process of passing through, the motion must be divisible; for at the time when Z was passing through, it neither was at rest nor had completed its passage but was in an intermediate state; while if it is passing through and has completed its passage at the same time, then that which is walking [5] will at the moment when it is walking have completed its walk and will be in the place to which it is walking; that is to say, it will have completed its motion at the place to which it is in motion. And if a thing is in motion over the whole ABC and its motion is DEF, and if it is not in motion at all over the partless section A but has completed its motion over it, then the motion will consist not of motions but of movings, and will take place by a thing’s having completed a motion without being in motion; for on this assumption it has completed its passage through A without [10] passing through it. So it will be possible for a thing to have completed a walk without ever walking; for on this assumption it has completed a walk over a particular distance without walking over that distance. Since, then, everything must be either at rest or in motion, and it is therefore at rest in each of A, B, and C, it follows that a thing can be at the same time continuously at rest and in motion; for, as we saw, it is in motion over the whole ABC and at rest in any part (and [15] consequently in the whole) of it. Moreover, if the indivisibles composing DEF are motions, it would be possible for a thing in spite of the presence in it of motion to be not in motion but at rest; while if they are not motions, it would be possible for motion to be composed of something other than motions.
And if length and motion are thus indivisible, it is similarly necessary that time also be indivisible, that is to say be composed of indivisible nows; for if every motion [20] is divisible and bodies of equal velocity will move less in less time, the time must also be divisible; and if the time in which a thing is carried over A is divisible, A must also be divisible.
2 · And since every magnitude is divisible into magnitudes—for we have shown that it is impossible for anything continuous to be composed of indivisible [25] parts, and every magnitude is continuous—it necessarily follows that the quicker of two things traverses a greater magnitude in an equal time, an equal magnitude in less time, and a greater magnitude in less time, in conformity with the definition sometimes given of the quicker. Suppose that A is quicker than B. Now since of two [30] things that which changes sooner is quicker, in the time FG, in which A has changed from C to D, B will not yet have arrived at D but will be short of it: so that in an equal time the quicker will pass over a greater magnitude. More than this, it will pass over a greater magnitude in less time; for in the time in which A has arrived at D, B being the slower has arrived, let us say, at E. Then since A has [232b1] occupied the whole time FG in arriving at D, it will have arrived at H in less time than this, say FJ. Now the magnitude CH that A has passed over is greater than the magnitude CE, and the time FJ is less than the whole time FG; so that the quicker [5] will pass over a greater magnitude in less time. And from this it is also clear that the quicker will pass over an equal magnitude in less time than the slower. For since it passes over the greater magnitude in less time than the slower, and (regarded by itself) passes over the greater in more time than the lesser—LM than LN—, the time PR in which it passes over LM will be more than the times PS in which it [10] passes over LN: so that, the time PR being less than the time T in which the slower passes over LN, PS will also be less than T; for it is less than PR, and that which is less than something less is also itself less. Hence it will traverse an equal magnitude in less time. Again, since the motion of anything must always occupy either an equal [15] time or less or more time, and since, whereas a thing is slower if its motion occupies more time and of equal velocity if its motion occupies an equal time, the quicker is neither of equal velocity nor slower, it follows that the motion of the quicker can occupy neither an equal time nor more time. It can only be, then, that it occupies less time, and thus it is necessary that the quicker will pass over an equal magnitude too in less time.
And since every motion is in time and a motion may occupy any time, and the [20] motion of everything that is in motion may be either quicker or slower, both quicker motion and slower motion may occupy any time: and this being so, it necessarily follows that time also is continuous. By continuous I mean that which is divisible into divisibles that are always divisible: and if we take this as the definition of continuous, it follows necessarily that time is continuous. For since it has been [25] shown that the quicker will pass over an equal magnitude in less time than the slower, suppose that A is quicker and B slower, and that the slower has traversed the magnitude CD in the time FG. Now it is clear that the quicker will traverse the [30] same magnitude in less time than this: let us say in the time FH. Again, since the quicker has passed over the whole CD in the time FH, the slower will in the same time pass over CJ, say, which is less than CD. And since B, the slower, has passed [233a1] over CJ in the time FH, the quicker will pass over it in less time: so that the time FH will again be divided. And if this is divided the magnitude CJ will also be divided in the same ratio; and again, if the magnitude is divided, the time will also be d
ivided. And we can carry on this process for ever, taking the slower after the quicker and the quicker after the slower, and using what has been demonstrated; for the quicker [5] will divide the time and the slower will divide the length. If, then, this alternation always holds good, and at every turn involves a division, it is evident that all time must be continuous. And at the same time it is clear that all magnitude is also [10] continuous; for the divisions of which time and magnitude respectively are susceptible are the same and equal.
Moreover, the current arguments make it plain that, if time is continuous, magnitude is continuous also, inasmuch as a thing passes over half a given [15] magnitude in half the time, and in general over a less magnitude in less time; for the divisions of time and of magnitude will be the same. And if either is infinite, so is the other, and the one is so in the same way as the other; i.e. if time is infinite in respect of its extremities, length is also infinite in respect of its extremities; if time is infinite in respect of divisibility, length is also infinite in respect of divisibility; and if time is [20] infinite in both respects, magnitude is also infinite in both respects.
Hence Zeno’s argument makes a false assumption in asserting that it is impossible for a thing to pass over or severally to come in contact with infinite things in a finite time. For there are two ways in which length and time and generally [25] anything continuous are called infinite: they are called so either in respect of divisibility or in respect of their extremities. So while a thing in a finite time cannot come in contact with things quantitatively infinite, it can come in contact with things infinite in respect of divisibility; for in this sense the time itself is also infinite: and so we find that the time occupied by the passage over the infinite is not a finite [30] but an infinite time, and the contact with the infinites is made by means of moments not finite but infinite in number.