Jewish philosophy -- Early works to 1800; Judaism -- Works to 1900; Philosophy, Medieval -- Early works to 1800
There is in the properties of the spheres another circumstance that is
opposed to the assumed laws of Nature; namely, if the substance of all
spheres is the same, why does it not occur that the form of one sphere
combines with the substance of another sphere, as is the case with
things on earth, simply because their substance is fit [for such
changes]? If the substance of all spheres is the same, if it is not
assumed that each of them has a peculiar substance, and if, contrary to
all principles, the peculiar motion of each sphere is no evidence for
the special character of its substance, why then should a certain form
constantly remain united with a certain substance? Again, if the stars
have all one substance, by what are they distinguished from each other?
is it by forms? or by accidents? Whichever be the case, the forms or
the accidents would interchange, so that they would successively unite
with every one of the stars, so long as their substance [being the
same] admits the combinations [with every one of the forms or the
accidents]. This shows that the term substance, when used of the
spheres or the stars, does not mean the same as it signifies when used
of the substance of earthly things, but is applied to the two
synonymously. It further shows that every one of the bodies of the
spheres has its own peculiar form of existence different from that of
all other beings. Why then is circular motion common to all spheres,
and why is the fixed position of the stars in their respective spheres
common to all stars? If we, however, assume design and determination of
a Creator, in accordance with His incomprehensible wisdom, all these
difficulties disappear. They must arise when we consider the whole
Universe, not as the result of free will, but as the result of fixed
laws of Nature: a theory which, on the one hand, is not in harmony with
the existing order of things, and does not offer for it a sufficient
reason or argument; and, on the other hand, implies many and great
improbabilities. For, according to this theory, God, whose perfection
in every respect is recognised by all thinking persons, is in such a
relation to the Universe that He cannot change anything; if He wished
to make the wing of a fly longer, or to reduce the number of the legs
of a worm by one, He could not accomplish it. According to Aristotle,
He does not try such a thing, and it is wholly impossible for Him to
desire any change in the existing order of things; if He could, it
would not increase His perfection; it might, on the contrary, from some
point of view, diminish it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account