Rectilinear motion versus Rotary

Rotation is the primary locomotion.

Every locomotion is either rotatory or rectilinear or a compound of the two.

The two former must be prior to the last, since they are the elements of which the latter consists.

Rotatory locomotion is prior to rectilinear locomotion, because it is more simple and complete, which may be shown as follows.

The straight line traversed in rectilinear motion cannot be infinite: for there is no such thing as an infinite straight line; and even if there were, it would not be traversed by anything in motion: for the impossible does not happen and it is impossible to traverse an infinite distance.

On the other hand rectilinear motion on a finite straight line is if it turns back a composite motion, in fact two motions, while if it does not turn back it is incomplete and perishable: and in the order of nature, of definition, and of time alike the complete is prior to the incomplete and the imperishable to the perishable.

A motion that admits of being eternal is prior to one that does not. Now rotatory motion can be eternal:

But no other motion, whether locomotion or motion of any other kind, can be so, since in all of them rest must occur and with the occurrence of rest the motion has perished.

Moreover the result at which we have arrived, that rotatory motion is single and continuous, and rectilinear motion is not, is a reasonable one.

In rectilinear motion we have a definite starting-point, finishing-point, middle-point, which all have their place in it in such a way that there is a point from which that which is in motion can be said to start and a point at which it can be said to finish its course (for when anything is at the limits of its course, whether at the startingpoint or at the finishing-point, it must be in a state of rest).

On the other hand in circular motion there are no such definite points: for why should any one point on the line be a limit rather than any other?

Any one point as much as any other is alike starting-point, middle-point, and finishing-point, so that we can say of certain things both that they are always and that they never are at a startingpoint and at a finishing-point (so that a revolving sphere, while it is in motion, is also in a sense at rest, for it continues to occupy the same place).

The reason of this is that in this case all these characteristics belong to the centre: that is to say, the centre is alike starting-point, middle-point, and finishing-point of the space traversed; consequently since this point is not a point on the circular line, there is no point at which that which is in process of locomotion can be in a state of rest as having traversed its course, because in its locomotion it is proceeding always about a central point and not to an extreme point: therefore it remains still, and the whole is in a sense always at rest as well as continuously in motion. Our next point gives a convertible result: on the one hand, because rotation is the measure of motions it must be the primary motion (for all things are measured by what is primary): on the other hand, because rotation is the primary motion it is the measure of all other motions.

Again, rotatory motion is also the only motion that admits of being regular.

In rectilinear locomotion the motion of things in leaving the starting-point is not uniform with their motion in approaching the finishing point, since the velocity of a thing always increases proportionately as it removes itself farther from its position of rest: on the other hand rotatory motion is the only motion whose course is naturally such that it has no starting-point or finishingpoint in itself but is determined from elsewhere.

The truth of locomotion being the primary motion is attested by all who have mentioned motion in their theories.

They all assign their first principles of motion to things that impart motion of this kind.

Thus:

• ‘separation’ and ‘combination’ are motions in respect of place
• The motion imparted by ‘Love’ and ‘Strife’ takes these forms
  • Strife separates
  • Love combines.

Anaxagoras says that ‘Mind’, his first movent, ‘separates’.

Similarly, those who assert no cause of this kind but say that ‘void’ accounts for motion they also hold that the motion of natural substance is motion in respect of place:

This is because their motion that is accounted for by ‘void’ is locomotion. Its sphere of operation is place.

They think that the primary substances are not subject to any of the other motions, though the things that are compounds of these substances are so subject.

The processes of increase and decrease and alteration, they say, are effects of the ‘combination’ and ‘separation’ of atoms.

It is the same, too, with those who make out that the becoming or perishing of a thing is accounted for by ‘density’ or ‘rarity’: for it is by ‘combination’ and ‘separation’ that the place of these things in their systems is determined. Moreover to these we may add those who make Soul the cause of motion:

for they say that things that undergo motion have as their first principle ‘that which moves itself’: and when animals and all living things move themselves, the motion is motion in respect of place.

We say that a thing ‘is in motion’ in the strict sense of the term only when its motion is motion in respect of place.

If a thing is in process of increase or decrease or is undergoing some alteration while remaining at rest in the same place, we say that it is in motion in some particular respect: we do not say that it ‘is in motion’ without qualification.

My present position is: There always was motion and always will be motion throughout all time.

I have explained:

• what is the first principle of this eternal motion.
• which is the primary motion
• which is the only motion that can be eternal
• that the first movement is unmoved.