Programska knjižica - Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo

PETRIĆ’S ANTINOMY
In book six of the fourth volume of his Discussiones peripateticae Petrić
rejects Aristotle’s statement on the eternity of heaven. His rejection is not constructed
on counterthesis, that is, the proof of the counterthesis, but on the
criticism of Aristotle’s argumentation, i.e., refutation of Aristotle’s proof that
heaven is eternal, because heaven itself holds no contrariety. That argumentation
is immanent criticism, that is, Petrić proves that by Aristotle’s own theses
it is not true that the heaven holds no contrariety. Contrariety in heaven Petrić
proves on the basis of Artistotle’s thesis of the continuity of spheres that form
spherically after one another. In such forming that which forms, Petrić asserts,
is hard, while that which is formed is soft – both hard and soft, Petrić holds,
are contrarieties.
Petrić, however, is not satisfied with the proof that contrariety exists in
heaven, which would suffice for his refutation of Aristotle’s thesis that heaven
holds no contrariety. Based on the thesis of the mutual forming of spheres,
Petrić proves that one and the same sphere may be described both as hard and
soft depending on the position from which the forming of the spheres is observed.
Should one start from the last sphere, then it is the hardest, the sphere
of the Saturn that follows is softer, etc.; should one start from the sphericity of
water on the Earth after which the sphericity of air, fire etc. is modelled, then
water is the hardest and the first heavenly sphere the softest. These deductions
Petrić calls ‘Aristotle’s monsters’, and we may call them ‘Petrić’s antinomy’.
By using antinomy, Petrić has proved the following: If mutual and continuous
forming of heavenly spheres is interpreted according to mutual forming
of things in the world – in which we have to renounce the control of senses
and formalise the relations of the mutual forming – then for one and the same
sphere one may prove that in one sequence is the one that forms, the hard one,
while in the inverse sequence is the one that is formed, i.e., the soft one. What
might be considered proven by this antinomy is the inadequacy of the application
of the paradigm of mutual forming (spherical or other) on the objects
inaccessible to the senses (apart from sight).
Key words: eternity of heaven, spherical form, continuity of spheres, contrariety,
hard–soft, Petrić’s antinomy
149