The unmoved mover

[Yakuda]

Aquinas was famously keen on using Aristotelean logic, and his uncaused first cause was undoubtedly riffing off Aristotle's unmoved mover reasoning.

No one refutes that

 

[Cypress]

Does it have "will"?

Or is it simply compelled to create the universe as if it were a "law of nature"?

I don't think will is defined by science, and you yourself claim there is no such thing as free will or choice.

As far as I know, Aristotle did not talk about the will of the unmoved mover.

 

[Cypress]

The comforting thing about my philosophy---everything is random---
is that the concept itself precludes explanations.

If everything is random, then so are the motions of quarks and electrons in our brains. And if that's the case, why would we trust any thoughts and ideas our brain produces, if it comes from random motions?

Science has a kind of religious faith of its own - that the universe is rationally intelligible - and all our observations of matter and energy to date support that belief. Aristotle, who was arguably the first scientist, saw the rational intelligibility of the universe and logically inferred it pointed to a rational first principle, aka "God"..

 

[Ross Dolan]

Aristotle conceives of a cosmos, a hierarchically ordered world in which things have their places. Human being is the highest animal of all. The highest being of all is God, the unmoved mover of the entire world. God is pure actuality and contains no matter. God is pure thought.

In the Physics, Aristotle argues that there must be a highest being.
He argues that if there is movement in the world, there must be an original source of that movement.
The original source of movement cannot itself be moved. If it were moving, it, too, would require a cause to move it.
There is thus one, primary, unmoved mover.

Aristotle’s God is not like the God of the Jews, Christians, or Muslims.
Aristotle’s God has no moral virtues. It is not generous or loving or just. To be moral implies some sort of lack.
God lacks nothing. Hence, God cannot be moral.
Aristotle’s God is pure thinking, which is the highest activity.

Aristotle’s views on these matters have been debated for centuries. The basic takeaway is Aristotle's views give affirmation to his conviction that the world is an intelligible cosmos. By having a first principle, an unmoved mover, it ultimately makes sense.



sources used:
David Roochnik, Introduction to Greek Philosophy
Robert Bartlett Masters of Greek Thought: Socrates, Plato, Aristole

Aristotle and Aquinas are both (you will excuse the expression) full of shit for attempting to answer a question that could not, at their time, be answered the way they were trying to answer.

It still cannot be.

The only reasonable answer to the question of, "What is the REALITY?" is...

...I do not know.

The notion that there is an unmoved mover...or a first cause...is, at best, a blind guess about what the REALITY could be. It may be something else entirely.

 

[Cypress]

Aristotle and Aquinas are both (you will excuse the expression) full of shit for attempting to answer a question that could not, at their time, be answered the way they were trying to answer.

It still cannot be.

The only reasonable answer to the question of, "What is the REALITY?" is...

...I do not know.

The notion that there is an unmoved mover...or a first cause...is, at best, a blind guess about what the REALITY could be. It may be something else entirely.

I would agree that Aristotle was likely completely wrong.

I don't agree that a deduction is the same as a blind guess.

Aristotle's concept of a first principle is a deduction from the observation of the formal structure of the cosmos. A deduction doesn't have to be correct, it just has to follow the formal rules of logic.

 

[Daylight63]

I don't think will is defined by science, and you yourself claim there is no such thing as free will or choice.

I never said there is no such thing. I merely pointed out to the poster Hume that there is evidence that free may not exist if the neuroscience is right. But I"m not committed to that.

I think, however, we can all agree what "will" is. Does this prime mover make decisions and choices? Does it have desire for some particular outcome?

As far as I know, Aristotle did not talk about the will of the unmoved mover.

I'm not familiar with what Aristotle said but I am curious about what the people on this forum who talk about this prime mover actually think this prime mover is or what its nature is.

 

[Kafka]

This is an impressive thread. So deep. I think one could probably write a Python code to generate most of the posts:

import random
def insert_aristotle(sentence):
words = sentence.split() # Choose a random position to insert "Aristotle"
position = random.randint(0, len(words)) # Insert "Aristotle" at the chosen position
words.insert(position, "Aristotle") # Join the words back into a sentence
new_sentence = ' '.join(words)
return new_sentence# Example usage
insert_aristotle(original_sentence)
print(new_sentence)

That should make this thread go faster!

 

[Scut Farkus]

Aquinas' "First Uncaused Cause" does have a problem at its core. It requires that there be one "special" item which can exist without a cause. But the only reason it has to exist is in order to make the argument.

Why is it NOT OK for everything else to require a "cause" but it's OK for God?

If the answer is "God is special" then it really just becomes a matter of definition. Just defining God that way by fiat doesn't actually answer any questions.

"yes. the problem with all words games that they're all word games." -- Lao Tse

 

[Scut Farkus]

This is an impressive thread. So deep. I think one could probably write a Python code to generate most of the posts:

import random
def insert_aristotle(sentence):
words = sentence.split() # Choose a random position to insert "Aristotle"
position = random.randint(0, len(words)) # Insert "Aristotle" at the chosen position
words.insert(position, "Aristotle") # Join the words back into a sentence
new_sentence = ' '.join(words)
return new_sentence# Example usage
insert_aristotle(original_sentence)
print(new_sentence)

That should make this thread go faster!

this is all Masonic dipshits.

 

[Daylight63]

"yes. the problem with all words games that they're all word games." -- Lao Tse

I'm hoping to remove this discussion from the "word game" category. But I agree with you, if the debate is poorly structured it can VERY easily drift over into word games.

That's why I'm looking for more concrete explanations of what the nature of this "prime mover" is. I have so far heard "thought thinking thought" and "thought that suffuses everything" and "the concept of motion", etc.

So far it feels more like trying to nail jello to a board.

 

[Scut Farkus]

I'm hoping to remove this discussion from the "word game" category. But I agree with you, if the debate is poorly structured it can VERY easily drift over into word games.

That's why I'm looking for more concrete explanations of what the nature of this "prime mover" is. I have so far heard "thought thinking thought" and "thought that suffuses everything" and "the concept of motion", etc.

So far it feels more like trying to nail jello to a board.

I think the existence of god is not the most important part of religion.

the most important part of religion is what kind of moral understanding and moral behavior it imparts.

do you agree?

my bet is you will now devolve the thread into word games about defining morality,

but I hope you do something better.

 

[Daylight63]

I think the existence of god is not the most important part of religion.

the most important part of religion is what kind of moral understanding and moral behavior it imparts.

I can actually get your point and I kind of agree with it here! Religion can provide comfort to its believers and give them the impetus to do really good stuff in the name of their faith even if God doesn't exist.

I was reading something recently about neuroscience studies looking at how the brain processes information and calling into question whether "free will exists" or not, but setting aside the freewill part the researchers found that if test subjects were presented with writings that questioned free will and the existence of personal responsibility they tended to perform less "ethically" in some subsequent tests than subjects who were presented with stuff confirming free will and personal responsibility.

So even if the science is correct and free will is "iffy" at best, there is still a benefit to the overall society for people to BELIEVE there is free will and hence personal responsibility.

(I have to admit that reading this stuff is a mind-trip and really hard to accept what the science is showing)

my bet is you will now devolve the thread into word games about defining morality,

Not really going to define morality. I think we can all generally agree on what moral action is even if we may disagree on the origins of the morality.

 

[Scut Farkus]

I can actually get your point and I kind of agree with it here! Religion can provide comfort to its believers and give them the impetus to do really good stuff in the name of their faith even if God doesn't exist.

I was reading something recently about neuroscience studies looking at how the brain processes information and calling into question whether "free will exists" or not, but setting aside the freewill part the researchers found that if test subjects were presented with writings that questioned free will and the existence of personal responsibility they tended to perform less "ethically" in some subsequent tests than subjects who were presented with stuff confirming free will and personal responsibility.

So even if the science is correct and free will is "iffy" at best, there is still a benefit to the overall society for people to BELIEVE there is free will and hence personal responsibility.

(I have to admit that reading this stuff is a mind-trip and really hard to accept what the science is showing)



Not really going to define morality. I think we can all generally agree on what moral action is even if we may disagree on the origins of the morality.

there's defintiely free will.

the totalitarians are destroying the notion of free will for many reasons, from stifling dissent to strengthening corruption to enabling big pharma sales by convincing humanity the best healthcare is pills over lifetstyle changes.




denigrating free will is quite evil.

 

[Scut Farkus]

the aliens and the demon robots hate human solidarity.

 

[Daylight63]

there's defintiely free will.

It sure feels like it, doesn't it? Neuroscience is showing some holes in the claim, though.

(Again, it's a total mind fuck to read the kind of results they are finding in neuroscience these days....like super-unsettling.)

Thankfully it's still possible to function regardless of which side one falls on the discussion.

the totalitarians are destroying the notion of free will for many reasons, from stifling dissent to strengthening corruption to enabling big pharma sales by convincing humanity the best healthcare is pills over lifetstyle changes.

I'm talking about the science here.

denigrating free will is quite evil.

Not really. But I know it carries a lot of potential moral implications that are very unsettling if true.

I don't know either way. But nowadays I'm less certain of the proposition that it exists but still live my life as if it does. I can do no other.

 

[Daylight63]

the aliens and the demon robots hate human solidarity.

Do the aliens control the demon robots? Or are they from a different galaxy?

We recently bought a Roomba and our dog is pretty sure that we have brought a demon robot into the house. And he stands with you 100%.

 

[Scut Farkus]

It sure feels like it, doesn't it? Neuroscience is showing some holes in the claim, though.

(Again, it's a total mind fuck to read the kind of results they are finding in neuroscience these days....like super-unsettling.)

Thankfully it's still possible to function regardless of which side one falls on the discussion.



I'm talking about the science here.



Not really. But I know it carries a lot of potential moral implications that are very unsettling if true.

I don't know either way. But nowadays I'm less certain of the proposition that it exists but still live my life as if it does. I can do no other.

there are some highly paid scientists trying to help the totalitarians denigrate free will.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

What is "moving" other than choosing actions?
Perhaps that's the word that I'm not understanding.

I'd love some insight on the meaning of "mover."

 

[Kafka]

I'd love some insight on the meaning of "mover."

It is vague and undefined for a reason. It allows people to pontificate at length and feel themselves to be "deeeep" thinkers, but it doesn't really have any meaning. And it doesn't actually require any "thinking".

Just look at this thread. None of our local Intelligentsia (including Wikipedia Scholar) are willing to define it in a way that any other of the local intelligentsia define it. I think it's something like thinking nothingness thinking thoughts about somethingness or something like that.

Oh, forgot to include "Aristotelian" in that sentence. My bad.

 

[Mason 22]

fuck aristotles God.

all this shit is gay.

Homophobic?