MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604395808 · doi:10.1353/tho.2014.0024

Albertus Magnus: Matter, Motion, and the Heavens

2014· article· en· W2604395808 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven Baldner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyNothingMotion (physics)DoctrineEpistemologyExtension (predicate logic)Subject matterRelation (database)PhysicsTheologyClassical mechanicsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

327 The Thomist 78 (2014): 327-50 ALBERTUS MAGNUS: MATTER, MOTION, AND THE HEAVENS STEVEN BALDNER St. Francis Xavier University Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada WO OF THE most difficult concepts in natural philosophy are those of matter and motion. It is difficult to think about matter because the reality to which it refers is not any actual thing, but our concepts naturally focus on actual things. Matter is the principle of potentiality, the principle by which an actual thing might be something other than it is. What we know, however, comes from what is actual; the potential is an extension of the actual into an otherness that is not known. Immediate potentialities are fairly easy to recognize (this cold water could be hot), but their underlying principle— the pure potentiality of matter—is very hard to conceptualize. Matter, however, as it is understood in the Aristotelian tradetion , 1 is precisely this pure potentiality that is opposed to actuality. It is potentiality for change and motion, and nothing more than that. It is a real principle of material things, but is not itself a thing. Matter is fundamental to everything that we experience, but it is not itself something that we experience. It is only when we think of it in relation to form that we can conceptualize it at all, but form, the principle of actuality, is the very opposite of matter. Albert says that we have no proper 1 This is already a problematic claim; some scholars do not find a doctrine of matter as pure potentiality in Aristotle. See Christopher Byrne, “Matter and Aristotle’s Material Cause,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 31 (2001): 85-112; William Charlton, “ ‘Prime Matter’: A Rejoinder,” Phronesis 28 (1983): 197-211; Hugh R. King, “Aristotle without Prime Matter,” Journal of the History of Ideas 17 (1956): 370-89. T 328 STEVEN BALDNER concept (proprius intellectus) of matter; it is understood in relation to form, and only insofar as we can remove from it any ideas of form.2 Motion is equally hard to conceptualize, but for a different reason. Our concepts are static: they focus on this and not that; they define, limit, put boundaries around, freeze our experience . But the world we experience is one of constant motion, change, and alteration: it is never only this and not that, but always this becoming that. Our mental world, too, is one of change, even though its concepts and propositions are static. We may say that our understanding changes or develops, but we say so not because concepts change or develop but because we replace one concept with another. We define something more accurately by adding or subtracting conceptual notes to the definition , but the conceptual notes themselves do not change. The fundamentals of the mental world are atomistic, but the world of our experience, both inner and outer, is a world of real change and motion. Albertus Magnus (1200-1280) was the first Scholastic philosopher to have taken Aristotle’s philosophy as a whole into the service of theology. It is for reason of this service that Albert commented extensively on the whole of Aristotle’s work. In the reception of Aristotle, along with Avicenna, Averroës, Maimonides , and many other commentators, the thirteenth century underwent a scientific revolution. A new scientific way of under-standing the universe was given to the Christian West, and it was Albert’s genius to have been among the first to recognize the full value of this new learning. He welcomed Aristotle and the Aristotelian entourage eagerly, recognizing that this new science would enrich the understanding of the faith, but his welcome was not uncritical, for he knew that Aristotle had to be corrected and supplemented on numerous points. Fundamental to this project of bringing Aristotelian 2 References to the works of Albert are to one of two editions: Opera Omnia, ed. E. Borgnet, 38 vols. (Paris: Vives, 1890-99); Alberti magni Opera Omnia, ed Institutum Alberti Magni Coloniense (Münster: Aschendorff, 1951-). The latter, critical edition is known as the “Cologne” edition. Albert, Summa de creaturis, p. 1, tr. 1, q. 2, a. 2 (Borgnet, ed., 34:323a-b). MATTER, MOTION, AND THE HEAVENS 329 science...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly ReviewSame topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207