FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551   552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559  
560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   572   573   574   575   576   577   578   579   580   581   582   583   584   >>   >|  
el in a place is nothing else than the various contacts of various places successively, and not at once; because an angel cannot be in several places at one time, as was said above (Q. 52, A. 2). Nor is it necessary for these contacts to be continuous. Nevertheless a certain kind of continuity can be found in such contacts. Because, as was said above (Q. 52, A. 1), there is nothing to hinder us from assigning a divisible place to an angel according to virtual contact; just as a divisible place is assigned to a body by contact of magnitude. Hence as a body successively, and not all at once, quits the place in which it was before, and thence arises continuity in its local movement; so likewise an angel can successively quit the divisible place in which he was before, and so his movement will be continuous. And he can all at once quit the whole place, and in the same instant apply himself to the whole of another place, and thus his movement will not be continuous. Reply Obj. 1: This argument fails of its purpose for a twofold reason. First of all, because Aristotle's demonstration deals with what is indivisible according to quantity, to which responds a place necessarily indivisible. And this cannot be said of an angel. Secondly, because Aristotle's demonstration deals with movement which is continuous. For if the movement were not continuous, it might be said that a thing is moved where it is in the term _wherefrom,_ and while it is in the term _whereto_: because the very succession of "wheres," regarding the same thing, would be called movement: hence, in whichever of those "wheres" the thing might be, it could be said to be moved. But the continuity of movement prevents this; because nothing which is continuous is in its term, as is clear, because the line is not in the point. Therefore it is necessary for the thing moved to be not totally in either of the terms while it is being moved; but partly in the one, and partly in the other. Therefore, according as the angel's movement is not continuous, Aristotle's demonstration does not hold good. But according as the angel's movement is held to be continuous, it can be so granted, that, while an angel is in movement, he is partly in the term _wherefrom,_ and partly in the term _whereto_ (yet so that such partiality be not referred to the angel's substance, but to the place); because at the outset of his continuous movement the angel is in the whole divisible place from
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551   552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559  
560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   572   573   574   575   576   577   578   579   580   581   582   583   584   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
movement
 

continuous

 

divisible

 

partly

 

Aristotle

 

demonstration

 
contacts
 

successively


continuity

 

contact

 

Therefore

 

whereto

 

wheres

 

wherefrom

 

indivisible

 

places


succession

 

Secondly

 

granted

 
outset
 
substance
 
referred
 
partiality
 

whichever


prevents

 
totally
 

called

 
likewise
 

hinder

 
Because
 

assigning

 
virtual

magnitude
 

assigned

 
Nevertheless
 
purpose
 

argument

 
twofold
 

reason

 

responds


quantity

 
arises
 

instant

 

necessarily