Please make a critical analysis of this one. I found this somewhere.

THE MEASUREMENT OF CORPOREAL ACTIVITY: SPACE AND TIME

1. Space

1.1 Description of Space

We know that bodies naturally are in place which was defined as: the immovable surface circumscribing a body. nevertheless bodies are said to be distant from each other insofar as each one of them occupies a place which is separate from another place. Moreover, a certain body is moved from a place into a place. From distance and motion arises the notion of space which is understood as the sum of all places.

Space is commonly understood as an immense receptacle in which bodies move. It is in this manner also that space is understood by physicists who formulate the laws on motion in Mechanics. Space is therefore connected with extension and place. Nevertheless it is distinguished from both in the following senses:

1) Space differs from extension from the common manner of speaking since:

a) extension is contained by space; space is understood as something containing (that is, a receptacle)
b) corporeal extension is not vacuous; space can be a vacuum;
c) extension is naturally impenetrable; space is understood as immovably penetrable.

2) Space differs from place from the common manner of speaking since:

a) place is a surface and thus needs only length and breadth; to space is added altitude and thus requires three dimensions;
b) place is a limited surface; space is understood as unlimited;
c) place indicates only the circumscribing or containing surface space indicates that which contains and the distance among the located bodies.

1.2 The Question on Space

Along with physicists, while we ordinarily have no diffulty talking about space, on the other hand, philosophers who look into supreme causes of things, pose well-known questions regarding space. The problem expressed thus:

What is space? Is it something real or objective in nature? is it something purely subjective? Or is it some mean between subjective and objective?

1) Ultrarealism or exaggerated objectivism teaches that space is an objective reality distinct from the body. They explain in in either of two ways:
a) according to the ancient (Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus) and modern (Gassendi, 17th century) atomists, space is some immense and real vacuum, neither a substance nor an accident, but is a genus of its own. Today, many physicists hold this view.
b) according to Newton and Clark (17th Century), space is the immensity of God himself.
2) Idealism or exaggerated subjectivism teaches that space is in no way anything real, but rather, it is a subjective state of perceiving. The Kantian doctrine on space is well-known:according to him, things are known by us in space, not because they are really in space, but because our faculties (our senses) represent them in space, like one who has red colored glasses sees everything as red. in the same way our senses represent everything to be in space because space is a native a priori form of our sense. Hence, things of nature are place by perception in space, not offered to perception in space.
3) Moderate Realism (modern objectivism, moderate subjectivsm) teaches that space is partly objective and partly subjective.

to understand this doctrine, the following must be noted:

a) space implies an extension of three dimensions, which
b) consists of a receptacle of many bodies, so that bodies have distance among themselves and are move from place to place.

From this we can say:

a) Extension is real in bodies; it really makes up a certain receptacle. Hence, the extension of three dimensions, insofar as it is occupied by bodies and measures bodies, is called real space, that is, really existing and objective. It is of this space that we along with physicists, commonly speak. It is called physical space.
b) The extension of three dimensions, if it is not considered as occupied by bodies (vacuum) and indefinite, as some immense receptacle, makes up an imaginary space, dealt with by poets or persons similarly.
c) The extension of three dimensions considered abstractly, that is, not occupied by bodies, but can be occupied by them, constitute ideal or absolute space, dealt with by mathematicians in Geometry. It is also called mathematical or geometrical space.


While imaginary space is a product of the imagination, ideal space is a concept universally expressing the three dimensions as capable of containing and measuring bodies. These three dimensions capable of containing and measuring bodies is not real, but is referred to the real extension of bodies (real space), from which reason obtains it.

Wherefore absolute space (or simply space) is a pure concept having foundation in reality or is a being of reason with foundation in reality. A being of reason or non-real being fabricated by reason or obtained by reason through the removal of the limits found in real space. Space is therefore something subjective ( a being of reason) but nevertheless founded on something objective (with foundation in reality), that is, it is not formally but only fundamentally real.

Let it be thus:

Absolute space
1. is not something formally objective;
2. neither is it something formally and absolutely subjective;
3. but is something formally subjective and fundamentally objective (a being of reason with foundation in reality.

Proofs of the Thesis.

Part I Absolute space is not something formally objective.)

Arg.1 (Because a vacuum cannot be real.)

That which is real (except for God) is limited, mobile and temporary. But space, according to the atomists, is a vacuum, immeasurable and eternal as a container of bodies. Therefore, space in the terms of the atomists, is not a real being.

Those that are neither substances nor accident cannot exist in nature.

Arg.2 (Because God is most simple)

Against Newton and Clark. No extension can be in God who is most simple. But if space is the same as the immensity of God, there would be extension in him. Therefore space is not the same as the immensity of God.

This doctrine is dangerous, because it leads to pantheism or the identification of God and the world.

Part II (Absolute space is not something formally and absolutely subjective as an a priori form of sensibility.)

If space is a pure form of human sensibility, extension would in no way exits because it is connected with space. But extension exists in things. Therefore space is not a pure form of sensibility.

As seen from the argument, the refutation of the Kantian doctrine is founded in the reality of extension, on which arises a question in Gnoseology, on account of the relationship between knowledge and reality. Therefore, the whole Kantian doctrine is presented and refuted.

Part III (Absolute space is a being pf reason with foundation in reality.)

1) Absolute space is a being of reason. There is a being of reason if it is accepted as a being which is not a real being. But space is accepted as a being (ideal being) while it is not a real being. Therefore, space is a being of reason, that is, something having logical or imaginary value.

Declaration of the minor. Truly, absolute space is accepted as a pure complex of three dimensions capable of containing and measuring all bodies. This is not however truly a being actually existing in reality. Nevertheless, it is accepted as being because we apply many predicates on space: big, small, immense, etc.

2) Absolute space has foundation in reality. Space is a being of reason with foundation in reality if it is necessary referred to the three dimensions of bodies which is real space. But in fact, space is referred to the three dimensions of bodies. Therefore, absolute space is a being of reason with foundation in reality of the measuring corporeal extension.

Conclusion . Extended bodies really exist. Bodies really have distance from each other, they move are measured in space which is made up of the three dimensions measuring bodies. But absolute space, as an immense and immobile complex of measuring dimensions, is a certain product of reason with foundation in reality of the measuring corporeal extension.

With this manner of thinking, we can say that absolute space can be called: the manner of movement according to here and there; the reality of the movement of a body does not imply the absolute reality of the measurement, except the very extension which establishes the conception of measurement. In the creation of new bodies extension is increased. The possibility of new measuring extension offers to us possible space, which is part of absolute space.


(I'd like to know your opinions regarding this post, whether this is metaphysically consistent with Einstein's theory of General and Special Relativity)