Philosophy Now Forum

Is it more natural for an object to drop or float?

The focus here is on the meaning of the word "natural."

Both are equally natural.

If everything around us is part of "nature" then most everything would count as "natural", including land fills. On the other hand, if what is meant by "nature" everything opposite to human beings, then as long as a human being doesn't touch it, it's "natural".

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it more natural for an object to drop or float?

The focus here is on the meaning of the word "natural."

So what do you mean by "natural"? Untill you give an exact definition of the word you can't think about answering the question. It's no good saying that the fous is on the word "natural". You are the one that used that particular word in your question so it's up to you to say exactly what you mean by it.

It's not necessarily up to me. You and everyone else uses the word "naturally" as well, therefore it is actually up to you and everyone else as well.

Jaded Sage wrote:It's not necessarily up to me. You and everyone else uses the word "naturally" as well, therefore it is actually up to you and everyone else as well.

Nice dodge.

It's not a dodge. It's a simple fact.

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it more natural for an object to drop or float?

No

Jaded Sage wrote:It's not a dodge. It's a simple fact.

Just because a question can be formulated in a way that is grammatically correct, it has no bearing on whether the question is sensible or meaningful.

In this instance I consider the question of the OP to be neither.

Or in the words of the immortal Chico Marx : "Why a duck?"!

Fair enough.

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it more natural for an object to drop or float?

It all depends.

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it more natural for an object to drop or float?

The focus here is on the meaning of the word "natural."

Aristotle said that things seek to find their "natural place". So the natural place for a stone is below water, which is why a stone sinks if you throw it into a pond. The natural place for a fluffy white cloud is right up in the sky, which is why it does not sink.

The trouble is that this isn't a very useful system for making predictions about the behaviour of objects. So this whole aspect of Aristotle's physics was abandoned once Galileo et al came up with a better understanding of gravity.

RickLewis wrote:The trouble is that this isn't a very useful system for making predictions about the behaviour of objects.

I dunno; I've yet to see a stone spontaneously shoot upwards. Ptolemy is pretty accurate, too.

RickLewis wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it more natural for an object to drop or float?

The focus here is on the meaning of the word "natural."

Aristotle said that things seek to find their "natural place". So the natural place for a stone is below water, which is why a stone sinks if you throw it into a pond. The natural place for a fluffy white cloud is right up in the sky, which is why it does not sink.

The trouble is that this isn't a very useful system for making predictions about the behaviour of objects. So this whole aspect of Aristotle's physics was abandoned once Galileo et al came up with a better understanding of gravity.

So you're saying it varies from object to object?

Jaded Sage wrote:Is it more natural for an object to drop or float?

The focus here is on the meaning of the word "natural."

It really is amazing how much senslesness you've managed to pack into two short sentences.