more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
It is absurd to explain place by the void, as though this latter were not itself some kind of place.
Gist of Idea
Void is a kind of place, so it can't explain place
Source
Aristotle (On the Heavens [c.336 BCE], 309b24)
Book Ref
Democritus: 'Early Greek Phil VII: Democritus', ed/tr. Laks,A/Most,G [Harvard Loeb 2016], p.395
A Reaction
Presumably this is aimed at Democritus.
| 13217 | The void can't exist, and without the void there can't be movement or separation [Parmenides, by Aristotle] |
| 5100 | The void is not required for change, because a plenum can alter in quality [Aristotle on Melissus] |
| 24059 | Democritus is wrong: in a void we wouldn't see a distant ant in exact detail [Aristotle on Democritus] |
| 5101 | Movement is impossible in a void, because nothing can decide the direction of movement [Aristotle on Democritus] |
| 20905 | Growth and movement would not exist if there were no void to receive them [Democritus] |
| 20918 | Void is a kind of place, so it can't explain place [Aristotle] |
| 14043 | The void cannot interact, but just gives the possibility of motion [Epicurus] |
| 20822 | There is no void in the cosmos, but indefinite void outside it [Zeno of Citium, by Ps-Plutarch] |