The article is dedicated to the futher researches of the main problems in the philosophy of movement. Previous researches were described in the same magazine - Soter, Nr. 1 (29). In this article the causes of the acceleration - the phenomenon mentioned in the previous article - are related with a movement under compulsion, the description of the notion of which may be found in the writings of famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. Recently we know many philosophers who are famous especially because of their care for a dialectics of freedom and compulsion in various fields (for example - the works of Michel Foucault). Also - many various groups (for example, the feminist movement, the green movement and soon) which are fighting against the various violation and forcing. Dialectically: parallel to the care of freedom we feel a growing attention to the all forms of compulsion and violation. An opposition to a movement under compulsion, according to Aristotle, is a movement by nature, or simply - a natural movement. A movement by nature seems to be the cure from an overspeeding.

The article is dedicated to the problems of philosophy of movement, or, to be more exact, to the problem which is related with the philosophy of movement itself. Because until now the philosophy of movement has not the separate and independent meaning in the whole system of philosophy or sciences at all. We are used to speak about different movements in the field of philosophy, or to speak about movement of philosophy, but how about the philosophy of movement itself? Are we clear enough thinking, speaking or writing about movement? What difference is between the notion of movement and the notion of change? We usually think, that movement can be attributed only to material things, and change not only to material. But the Greek word kinesis (movement) has more wide meaning than ours, and therefore Greek philosophy, especially Eleatic, was solving the metaphysical problem of kinesis (movement). The change is only one aspect of the whole notion of movement. Aristotle even said, that there are six species of movement (Cat 15a). But the problem, of course, is not in the exact number of different notions, but in the main understanding of one notion analogically, through many different aspects. Despite the different meanings which are attributed to the same notion of movement, used in different spheres of being, we can speak about one analogical notion of movement like we speak about one analogical notion of being. Until now the problem of movement was generally solved in the field of physics. But especially in physics the metaphysical side or the essence of movement was suspended, so Descartes speaks only about one meaning of movement, that is- about a body changing a place. Such understanding of movement can not help us, when solving the problems of the history of physics, for example. Is it heterogeneous (discreet movement) or homogenous (continuous movement)? Would we speak about the revolution or the evolution of science? All the same, at first it depends from our understanding of movement. Also the lack of the general notion of movement is the cause, why we have not any theory, except Aristotelian, as Pope John Paul II says in his fundamental philosophical work “Person and action”, for explaining the human dynamism. The physics of Aristotle is interesting only for the history of physics, but not for physics itself. But we can not say this about the general Aristotelian understanding of movement. One of the most important problems of nowadays experience in practice is an acceleration, or the cause of our hurrying.. Acceleration forces us to revive the philosophy of movement. Modern physics can not give us the ground for solving the problem of acceleration, because of the narrow notion of movement. But it is possible to use the notions of Newtonian physics not in the strict, but in the metaphorical sense. The ground for such an action is the fundamental ground for analogy in the notion of movement itself. So the problem of acceleration, as we suppose, can be interpreted with the help of the most important notion in the physics from G.Galileo and R.Descartes - the main principle of physics, which is called inertia. Already Descartes pointed out the prejudice, that it is easier to start moving than to stop. The experience of acceleration in nowadays remembers us the principle of inertia in physics. The main problem in nowadays practice is not the starting of moving but rather stopping. The cause of our hurrying is the growing of speed, i.e. we can do more works in the same time or we spend less time for the same w'ork. But the growing of speed causes the growing of impulse or vis inertiae, and that means, that we need more and more force to stop movement or to change the direction of movement. To say more: we are afraid of stopping, because we are afraid of being thrown away from our graphics of movement. Our graphics of movement are very compact because of the acceleration. We always have our personal plans, but often we are unconscious about the impersonal vis inertiae. We have not time decide to stop or to run on, because we already are in the state of furious running. Making of decision requires to stop. But stopping means, that decision to stop is already made. To run forth means not to make decision. But that also means that decision to run forth is already made. So we feel the dialectics of our movement, the dialectics of our busyness, which can be illustrated with the metaphor of running in the circle. Where is the force, which would help us to overcome the vis inertiae? Isn’t it our will? That means, that the opposite for our free will is not only necessity or compulsion, but also the vis inertiae.

Straipsnyje analizuojama Šv. Tomo Akviniečio judėjimo filosofija. Ypač susitelkiama į santykį tarp sąvokų judėjimas (motus) ir veiksmas (actus). Nagrinėjamos Arno Anzenbacherio ir Karolio Wojtylos siūlomos Šv. Tomo Akviniečio judėjimo filosofijoje naudojamų sąvokų interpretacijos. Svarstoma sąvokos judėjimas (motus) siejimo su gamta, o sąvokos veiksmas (actus) – su žmogiškosios veiklos sfera – problema. Daroma išvada, kad toks siejimas, nors ir giliai įsišaknijęs interpretacijos tradicijoje, yra nepakankamai pagrįstas. Todėl svarstoma kitos interpretacijos galimybė.