Oh, God, how did I not realize we had to blog today?

After making it through the jargon of the nature of persons (right? I read that two days ago so it's a little foggy), I made it to the physics/astronomy parts of Aristotle's writings. The parallels between the two were all about the five elements (fire, earth, water, air, ether) and, essentially, a person's character can be shaped by his intentions and actions from said intentions. That led into the science part with his:

"The natural way of doing this is to start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature; for the same things are not 'knowable relatively to us' and 'knowable' without qualification. So in the present inquiry we must follow this method and advance from what is more obscure by nature, but clearer to us, towards what is more clear and more knowable by nature."

Okay, right, great.

He goes on to expound on the nature of motion saying, "But all movement that is in place, all locomotion, as we term it, is either straight or circular or a combination of these two, which are the only simple movements," another granted thought from the time although, to be sure, it is without legitimate evidence.

The basic gist was that there is only one Earth and because the universe is without beginning, it is also without end and therefore indestructible.

Memo to self: What constitutes the heavens? And why are they necessarily spherical? Is 'heavens' synonymous with 'universe'? "That there is one heaven, then, only, and that it is ungenerated and eternal, and further that its movement is regular, has now been sufficiently explained."

Okay, so now that I've completely worn out my ctrl+c, ctrl+v keys, let's discuss a little Plato vs. Aristotle.

Plato, not being astronomically inclined and in fact being disdainful of it, has opinions simpler from that of Aristotle. Aristotle, I think, expounds on a lot of Plato's different thoughts but where Plato tries to use a lot of numbers, Aristotle uses only reasons and empirical observations. This makes perfect sense given the two philosophies on astronomy they have (well, duh).

Anyway, I've completely outdone myself stating the obvious today. Great job!