Historical Perspectives and Social Consequences
As with so many other phenomena that define our civilization, we owe the idea of energy—from en(in) and ergon (work)—to ancient Greeks. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle gave the term a primarily kinetic meaning: "The term "actuality" (energeia) ... has been extended to other things from motions, where it was mostly used; for actuality is thought to be motion most of all" (Metaphysics, Theta 3, p. 149).
For Greeks the word and its cognate terms filled a much larger conceptual niche than they do in modern scientific usage. In some of Aristotle's writings energeia stands in opposition to mere disposition, hexis; in others it carries the vigor of the style. The verb energein meant to be in action, implying constant motion, work, production, and change. The classical concept of energeia was thus a philosophical generalization, an intuitive expression embracing the totality of transitory processes, the shift from the potential to the actual. Although the perception was clearly holistic, it did not embrace the modern notion of the underlying commonality of diverse energies, the fact that their conversions can perform useful work.
This understanding was clearly formulated only by the middle of the nineteenth century; conceptualization of energy thus made hardly any advances during more than two thousand years following Aristotle's writings.
This is a free page. This page contains 201 words. This
article contains 5,438 words (approx. 18 pages at 300
words per page).
Read the rest of this Article with our Historical Perspectives and Social Consequences Access Pass.
