Aristotles Unmoved Mover: a better understanding
I want to know more on the subject of what Aristotle meant by this. The eternal unchanging unmoved mover.
It seems to me he posited this to define God however I have a problem understanding how there could not be change when for most of us it contradicts our senses for sure, for we witness change everyday.
I hope its not some semantic or linguistic trick being used here in the definition of the word change.
As to the unmoved mover idea it implies that hes outside of the motion hes creating. Or it could be hes immanent as the motion that hes creating is within him.
But then the above contradicts the eternal unchanging
It seems to me he posited this to define God however I have a problem understanding how there could not be change when for most of us it contradicts our senses for sure, for we witness change everyday.
I hope its not some semantic or linguistic trick being used here in the definition of the word change.
As to the unmoved mover idea it implies that hes outside of the motion hes creating. Or it could be hes immanent as the motion that hes creating is within him.
But then the above contradicts the eternal unchanging
Comments (29)
Personally I would have gone with just the Eternal but then again Aristotle was just being Aristotle he had to add unchanging to it and now its given me a conundrum to solve
And is if that isnt enough he adds more: unmoved mover
What a mess
I would like to discuss Aristotle with you but, honestly, I'm reading about this and none of it is making sense. Wikipedia is not ideal for learning things...at all, really.
I agree that tackling Aristotle is daunting (and my knowledge of him is fragmentary). The standard encyclopedia sources are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). A translator by the name of Joe Sachs authored some of those articles and is also translator of a well-regarded edition of Aristotle's Metaphysics. His IEP article is here https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-metaphysics/ and the homepage of his translation here https://www.greenlion.com/books/Metaphysics.html. Another well-regarded edition is his Nichomachean Ethics.
As in illustration of an unmoved mover, consider how a cat is attracted to a saucer of milk. The milk does not move but it does move the cat.
Quoting invicta
An excellent resource is "Ancient Philosophy: Aristotle and His Successors" by Susan Sauvé Meyer.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/aristotle
In particular, see these links (videos and transcripts):
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/aristotle/the-first-mover-of-the-cosmos-RO3zk
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/aristotle/the-unmoved-mover-qpDGr
Yup the problem is the quantity of the milk reduces because of the thirsty feline.
Hence the problem with eternal unchanging nature of such a being.
Perhaps the feline would pee on the bowl after so even though the quantity remains unchanging its now contaminated by the filthy feline.
@Wayfarer thanks for the link Andrew as well, shall peruse it at a more convenient time.
Elvis is in the building
Quoting invicta
Like Andrew gave the analogy above to the cat being drawn to the unchanging saucer of milk the issue with entropy becomes readily apparent.
And not just entropy but scale, in this case the quantity of milk being removed from the saucer.
In order to defend the whole description eternal unchanging unmoved mover certain modifications to the above analogy need to take place.
And I cant see any therefore Aristotle was wrong.
Unless I postulate the following thought experiment:
Suppose then the bowl of milk contains a little warning label in cat language that says Poison which can only be seen as the cat moves closer to the saucer.
The cat of course is a curios animal but even a curious animal knows full well to stay away from poison
Read Ethics, part I "Of God". (Re: Spinoza's substance)
The other analogy being that of moths to a light
Moths being moved by the unmoved mover (the lightbulb) do not affect its eternal unchanging nature of the light
This analogy doesn't work because (1) someone has to make "the lightbulb", (2) connect it to a power source and then (3) switch it on thus, it's neither "eternal nor unchanging". Also, it's "the moth's" genetic hardwiring for photosensitive attraction that moves it toward the switched on "lightbulb" and not "the lightbulb" itself which moves "the moth".
I don't think that Spinoza captures exactly what Aristotle said but agree those writings are closer than pretty much anything else before recent attempts to read him.
I think Spinoza shows the implications of Aristotle's thought and corrects reforrmulates the classical concept of "substance" (as it comes down from Aristotle to . . Anselm, Ibn Rushd, Maimonides, Aquinas & Descartes).
What warrants your assumption that the moth is in the same energy less environment as the darkness. Aristotle separates the two.
The eternal unchanging unmoved mover exists in isolation to what it affects. The moth etc.
Did Aristotle not conceptualise it in that way ?
What does that mean ?
What?
A typo ? So what did you mean to spell then chubby fingers :lol:
Can I get a please?
Must be a pretty big cell then
Something unchanging always remains what it is as it is.
Some quick comments:
There is little or no agreement as to what Aristotle means by 'God'. This much is clear. Whatever it might be it is not the creator of the universe. It does not interfere in the affairs of men. It does not hear our prayers. In brief, in order to understand what he is talking about, start by forgetting whatever assumptions, beliefs, and concepts you might have about God.
It is worth noting that Aristotle does not start with gods or prime movers (plural), but does use the term theology and does talk about things divine. There is a great deal of road work that must be done first.
speaks to me relating to being for itself and agency of willing, that is the determinate thing
transcendent in pure action in its aim. That is willing moving to its ends.
Thank you for your comment Alex. The issue presented itself to me in another thread so it piqued my interest hence the reason for this thread.
I am somewhat satisfied with the conclusion derived above to that of the moth to light analogy whilst ignoring the technical aspect of putting it into practice as 180 Proof pointed out.
I do however believe the subsequent modified analogy of moths to darkness addressed it somewhat but not fully in my mind.
There is of course the matter of intent, does God in this case wish to be acknowledged by the nature of the separation of these two vastly different substances.
What I mean is this, the eternal that has existed can part and separate itself then the issue as I see it that the offspring of the eternal would retain the formers attributes such as unchanging, which obviously presents a problem the way Aristotle presented it.
In Plato's Republic Glaucon says astronomy compels the soul to see what's above. Socrates responds that as it is taken up now it causes the soul to look downward. (429a)
The cause in these examples is not physical. More importantly, for both Plato and Aristotle it is not a one way street. Both the mover and what is moved are interconnected. Together they form a whole. It is not simply the stars that cause the movement up or down. It is Glaucon who moves his head and Socrates who moves from what is visible to what is intelligible. This is an indication of why in Aristotle's Physics he talks about the soul.
A most valid point, albeit with the niggling notion of defining the word unchanging (including motion).
Aristotle seems to imply that the eternal is still then, that the concept of motion is illusory or non-existent defying expectations and everyday observation.
If by motionless he means just that then it is separate from nature altogether, although nature can appear unchanging at times, change, decay, thermodynamics and entropy are everyday things.