The unmoved mover

Cypress said:
It's fine with me, because I don't see how a lawfully ordered and rationally intelligible universe just pops into existence out of nothing for no reason. An underlying purposeful and rational organizing principle - like an unmoved mover, an eternal logos, or whatever you want to call it - makes more sense.
Click to expand...
Exactly there was a reason!
 
Cypress said:
Aristotle agrees with me and he wasn't a Christian. He looked at an intelligible and organized cosmos, and logically surmised it was the result of a rational unmoved mover.
Click to expand...
How could Aristotle be Christian? He died in 322 BC!
So you had no opportunity to give his view on Jesus Christ!
 
Daylight63 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Easy.

They all believe they are the fundamental nature of reality, the ultimate principle, and are manifested in reality as objective truths in the cosmic order.

The Taoists believe the Tao is the creative energy that manifests in reality as harmony and balance.
The Neoconfucians think Li and Qi are the first principles that manifest in reality as the way of heaven, the objective truth and virtue.
The Christians think God is the eternal logos that manifests in reality as justice and objective moral truth.
The Hindus think Brahman is the universal spirit that manifests in reality as Dharma and moral duty.

If you are asking for physical descriptions/measurements/illustrations of these things, that is the wrong question to ask.

Now, assuming this question was asked in good faith, it would be easy to receive the answers to your questions by doing the work to read sacred literature like the Daodejing, New Testament, etc.
 
Cypress said:
Easy.

They all believe they are the fundamental nature of reality
Click to expand...

Which brings us back around to the original question: if it is a "fundamental nature of reality" can it make a "CHOICE"? Can it choose to do something or NOT do something else?

If it is little more than a law of nature that the universe must be created by this "fundamental feature" then how does it "choose" to create or not.

There is a lot of talk about "intelligence" in this mover. As such it seems reasonable to ask if it is an intelligence that has a will.


Cypress said:
The Taoists believe the Tao is the creative energy that manifests in reality as harmony and balance.
Click to expand...

I am still struggling to understand what that actually means. Whence does the "creative energy" come? Is it measurable? Or is it beyond the physical realm? How does one find this creative energy? It seems all to easy to simply imagine it and then say that. It is a bit more complex I think to actually explain what it means.

Cypress said:
The Neoconfucians think Li and Qi are the first principles that manifest in reality as the way of heaven, the objective truth and virtue.
Click to expand...

Are these things real things? Is Qi real? I know the Feng Shui folks deal in harnessing it. Or so I am told. But I have never seen it measured or characterized. Just spoken about.

Not that all things need to be "measurable". But if one posits something to be a real thing then surely there must be some way for someone who has never heard of Qi to stumble upon the concept independently.

Cypress said:
The Christians think God is the eternal logos that manifests in reality as justice and objective moral truth.
Click to expand...

That too has many implications that are difficult to nail down. And right now, per this discussion, it feels that it spans the range from the "thought thinking thought" concept all the way to the personal God of Christianity. That's almost as broad a classification of possibilities as the universe itself.

Cypress said:
The Hindus think Brahman is the universal spirit that manifests in reality as Dharma and moral duty.
Click to expand...

Same question applies to this as to Qi.

Cypress said:
If you are asking for physical descriptions/measurements/illustrations of these things, that is the wrong question to ask.
Click to expand...

So how do we know these things exist? If we are limited physical beings then we have to find them somehow. Otherwise it becomes impossible to draw a distinction between a real thing and an imaginary thing.

Cypress said:
Now, assuming this question was asked in good faith, it would be easy to receive the answers to your questions by doing the work to read sacred literature like the Daodejing, New Testament, etc.
Click to expand...

I have not read the Daodejing, but I've read the Bible. the Bible is a great resource of teachings to lead a "good life", but it is nothing more than someone telling me there is a being in heaven who cares for me and created the world.
 
Cypress said:
Easy.

They all believe they are the fundamental nature of reality, the ultimate principle, and are manifested in reality as objective truths in the cosmic order.
Click to expand...
Okay, but that has nothing to do with Aristotle's Prime Mover.
 
Ross Dolan said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are just an ignorant buffoon.
 
Hume said:
There is no cause of the physical universe.
Click to expand...

I'm down with that.

It is just as explanatory as the "first unpause cause" argument of Aquinas since it requires an "eternal" thing as well. Guess it's a "pick your poison" kinda thing. Either the universe (or whatever the universe spawned from in the BB) is eternal or God is eternal.

Both are equally hard to wrap our heads around.
 
Daylight63 said:
I'm down with that.

It is just as explanatory as the "first unpause cause" argument of Aquinas since it requires an "eternal" thing as well. Guess it's a "pick your poison" kinda thing. Either the universe (or whatever the universe spawned from in the BB) is eternal or God is eternal.

Both are equally hard to wrap our heads around.
Click to expand...
None of that is Aristotle. God is just the principle of intelligence. There is no creation, as Christians believe.
 
Hume said:
None of that is Aristotle.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I am not necessary limiting the concept of God or the first uncaused cause or whatever to that which Aristotle thought. I'm more interested in how the concept exists for people who espouse a position.

Hume said:
God is just the principle of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Principle of the intelligence. That sounds like there's something very important in it. I note you didn't just say the "intelligence" but rather the principle thereof.

I'm not super familiar with Aristotle's writings on this. Does that phrase carry a special meaning?

 
Cypress said:
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
Click to expand...
If by pure thinking Aristotle meant pure logic, then I agree. God is logical.
 
Daylight63 said:
Thanks for the clarification. I am not necessary limiting the concept of God or the first uncaused cause or whatever to that which Aristotle thought. I'm more interested in how the concept exists for people who espouse a position.



Principle of the intelligence. That sounds like there's something very important in it. I note you didn't just say the "intelligence" but rather the principle thereof.

I'm not super familiar with Aristotle's writings on this. Does that phrase carry a special meaning?
Click to expand...
Sorry, not understanding your question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top