tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10328789.post4686537856096617999..comments2023-04-04T04:06:41.971-04:00Comments on Respondeo dicendum: Is it just me?brendonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10074867504254411465noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10328789.post-44457068421427818202008-04-30T22:09:00.000-04:002008-04-30T22:09:00.000-04:00Well, the classic definition I remember for the ph...Well, the classic definition I remember for the philosophy of nature is "the study of matter in motion." So since the modern natural sciences study the matter and its motions under certain specific conditions and insofar as the matter and motion are quantifiable, I think they would qualify as sub-disciplines.<BR/><BR/>This seems to be in accordance with the definition of St. Thomas, given in his brendonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074867504254411465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10328789.post-57043316000447145192008-04-30T17:27:00.000-04:002008-04-30T17:27:00.000-04:00No, it peeves me as well.Also, I'm not so sure you...No, it peeves me as well.<BR/><BR/>Also, I'm not so sure you would want to call them sub-disciplines of the philosophy of nature since physics in the modern sense (and everything related to it) differs from Natural Philosophy in virtue of its formal object and in its method. So, not being subalternate to the philosophy of nature. . . .<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, there has been a lot of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com