St. Thomas: "Prime Mover"

[Linusthe2nd]

May I offer a few comments? Some are forgetting the key to the first way. It is precisely this. Thomas says "...whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that toward which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves in as much as it is in act.

This means that " ...a certain potentiallity is actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by ( something whose potentiality is actualized by, etc ) and so on...such a series can only possibly terminate in something which is not reduced to act or actualized by anything else, but which just isin act or actual and thus " unmoving "...Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover. " ( Edward Feser, in Aquinas, pg 73)

So the Unmoved Mover ( Aristotle's Prime Mover as interpreted by Aquinas) is Actus Purus or pure actuality having no potentiality whatsoever. Such a being, a Pure Actuality is immediately recognized by Christians as God.

Several things must be seen about such an Acutality. First, it must be outside the ontological members of the series since it is a pure actuality having no potentiality whereas the members of the series are all beings composed of actuality and potentiality.

Secondly such a series could actually be eternal since the Unmoved Mover itself is outside the series ontologically. One of our posters objected that an Unmoved Mover would not be required if the series was eternal. This answers that objection. It must be remembered that Thomas designed the proof to account for the possibility of an eternal universe. His proof shows that even if the universe is eternal an Unmoved Mover is required. What most people forget is that the Unmoved Mover is ontologically outside the series. Thomas could have made this more clear but he does explain himself in other places. However it is clear from the argument he gave if you think about it thoroughly.

Now it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something which can indeed be reduced to a Pure Actuality and thus can be identified easily as the Christian God. Thomas will go on in Book 1, Question 3 and following to analyize the nature of the Unmoved Mover, etc. or God. He will show that the First Being, God, has all the characteristics of the Christian God, including Intelligence, Will, Justice, Love, Goodness, Mercy, Personhood, etc. is Omnipotent, Omnescient, Omnipresent and, the creator, maintainer, and orderer of all that exists.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Perplexity

JDaniel, I think if we just cleared up a few things you're misunderstanding about Thomism and actual infinites (etc.) you'd be prepared to accept my objection, unfortunately, the tone has gotten far too bitter for my taste. Thanks for taking a swing anyways.

Perplexed:

That's fine. But, just to set the record straight, all of the misunderstanding concerning Thomism and infinities is on your part. So, if you can overcome St. Thomas' truths concerning those two things, you might even open your mind.

BTW, no bitterness here - just total sweetness.

God bless,
jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by levinas12

JD,

I remember reading somewhere an article that asked whether Aquinas' first unmoved mover argument was linked to the celestial spheres in Aristotelian astronomy. As you may recall, the spheres are embedded in the cosmos, one sphere turning another. in a subordinated series. The spheres themselves are moved by intelligences. In Aquinas, the intelligences are moved by love for the first unmoved mover (God) who acts as a final cause.

What I'm driving at is whether Aquinas' first unmoved mover argument stands or falls with Aristotelian astronomy.

Because, without the spheres, where else can we find a vertical series of simultanenous movers? And how would these movers be moved by the first unmoved mover? Final cause? But now could this happen if there are no longer cosmic non-human intelligences.

Levinas:

I've not seen anything along those lines. Nor, would I think it possible, having read more than a mere smattering of Aquinas and Aristotle. Also, you might want to go to a site where such a question could be answered. Here

But, actually, all we have to do is think it through:

Change or motion is a transition from potency to act. In everything we see, whatever is moved or changed is moved or changed by something that already is in act. The subject of the change or motion is in potency in that it does not have the perfection that it will possess upon conclusion of the transition - that it receives from the agent which is in act with respect to the perfection imparted. Now, everything that moves is moved by more than one antecedent (except in the case of ensoulment). Let's say that the thing we see that moves Mobile Being # 5, is moved by another mover up the chain, MB # 4, which is moved by another up the chain, MB # 3, which is then moved by another, MB # 2, etc.(We can lay out example after example in a dialectic that could involve everything in the universe.) But, it cannot regress to infinity. If it did, then there would be no first mover, all there would be would be an infinite stream of intermediate movers and the motion here and now would be unintelligible. (This conclusion, as you are aware, takes some intelligence to discern. Some people just never seem to get it.)

Any assertion that states that something can change itself is a violation of the principle of contradiction, since nothing gives what does not have. Nothing can be the cause of its own change. If it is changed, it is changed by another. Now, let's take an example from the book Being and God, by Frs. Klubertanz and Holloway. A book that, by the way, has not been outdated by anything newer. It is still current and unassailable.

Take the example of a chisel, a chisel is moved by a hand, the hand by the nerves that serve the hand, the nerves by the will, the will by the soul, the soul by that from which it has received its nature, and which is keeping that nature in existence. Here we can see a decent among the moved movers, from God, down to the soul, down to the will, down to the nerves, down to the hand, down to the chisel. Despite that some of these are level, the entire action can be seen as a downward trend. This is part of the reason for calling it a chain of subordinated moved movers.

To call the series "vertical" is to assign an attribute that only someone who does not understand Aquinas argument would give it. That would be an assignment that no one has the perspicacity to make, except by chicanery. Anyway, that's my opinion and I give it Free of charge!


God bless,
jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd

May I offer a few comments? Some are forgetting the key to the first way. It is precisely this. Thomas says "...whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that toward which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves in as much as it is in act.

This means that " ...a certain potentiallity is actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by something whose potentiality is itself actualized by ( something whose potentiality is actualized by, etc ) and so on...such a series can only possibly terminate in something which is not reduced to act or actualized by anything else, but which just isin act or actual and thus " unmoving "...Eventually this regress must terminate in something which here and now actualizes potentialities without itself being actualized, an unmoved mover. " ( Edward Feser, in Aquinas, pg 73)

So the Unmoved Mover ( Aristotle's Prime Mover as interpreted by Aquinas) is Actus Purus or pure actuality having no potentiality whatsoever. Such a being, a Pure Actuality is immediately recognized by Christians as God.

Several things must be seen about such an Acutality. First, it must be outside the ontological members of the series since it is a pure actuality having no potentiality whereas the members of the series are all beings composed of actuality and potentiality.

Secondly such a series could actually be eternal since the Unmoved Mover itself is outside the series ontologically. One of our posters objected that an Unmoved Mover would not be required if the series was eternal. This answers that objection. It must be remembered that Thomas designed the proof to account for the possibility of an eternal universe. His proof shows that even if the universe is eternal an Unmoved Mover is required. What most people forget is that the Unmoved Mover is ontologically outside the series. Thomas could have made this more clear but he does explain himself in other places. However it is clear from the argument he gave if you think about it thoroughly.

Now it can be shown that all the proofs conclude in a First Something which can indeed be reduced to a Pure Actuality and thus can be identified easily as the Christian God. Thomas will go on in Book 1, Question 3 and following to analyize the nature of the Unmoved Mover, etc. or God. He will show that the First Being, God, has all the characteristics of the Christian God, including Intelligence, Will, Justice, Love, Goodness, Mercy, Personhood, etc. is Omnipotent, Omnescient, Omnipresent and, the creator, maintainer, and orderer of all that exists.

Linus:

Thank you. Great explanation!

God bless,
jd

[norain]

Sometimes I wonder why this "first mover" concept seems so basic to some and to others no amount of explanation seems sufficient.

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by norain

Sometimes I wonder why this "first mover" concept seems so basic to some and to others no amount of explanation seems sufficient.

Some are incapable - it is difficult. No one can truely understand it, because who can understand God? That is who the Prime Mover is as Thomas said. Just because we call him the Prime Mover does not make him any less ineffable.

Some do not want to understand because they have a vested interest in God's non-existence.

Some are not motivated to study philosophy.

Some are just lazy and could care less.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by norain

Sometimes I wonder why this "first mover" concept seems so basic to some and to others no amount of explanation seems sufficient.

Norain:

Actually, I think they do understand it, but are desperately attempting to undermine it any way they can.

God bless,
jd