Could there be more than one 'unmoveable mover'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coolduude

Guest
Could there be? Or does logic dictate there must be one?

Thoughts?

Coolduude
 
It seems to me that there could be but, could the moved be able to distinguish that there were more than one unmoveable mover unless what distinguishes them were evident in the moved? What that could be seems incomprehensible.
 
I suggest that, if immovable mover A cannot move immovable mover B, he is not the mover. If he can, B is not immovable. And vice versa.
 
coolduude said:
Could there be? Or does logic dictate there must be one?

Thoughts?

Coolduude
Click to expand...
The ultimate end of motion must be a singular and not caused in any way by any other agent; for else it would not be the ultimate end of motion. Consequently, it is implausible that there are successive such movers; yet - it is not nessecarily so that there must be one; for simultaneous motion; or abstainance form motion; or indeed a latter yet uncausally related motion are plausible; thus - there can sensibly be more than one potential unmoved mover; and more than one actual (in the case of simultaneous and uncausally instigated movements; that is ones of accident)
No, every movement of a body is a motion relative to some other body. There is no such thing as an absolute “unmovement”. See the relativity theories.
Click to expand...
The title of the question is a bit confusing to those who have not studied philosopy. It is a rendoration of the unmoved(not unmoveable) mover; which is the idea that his movement was not caused by any other object; even if his causal acts consequently meant that relatively; he moved.
 
JohnDamian said:
The title of the question is a bit confusing to those who have not studied philosopy. It is a rendoration of the unmoved(not unmoveable) mover; which is the idea that his movement was not caused by any other object; even if his causal acts consequently meant that relatively; he moved.
Click to expand...
Unmoved in what reference frame? That has nothing to do with causing a motion.
An unmoved mover in one reference frame is moving in another, and there is no special one - that is basic physics. This philosophic idea of the unmoved mover is outdated, there is no unmovement, hence there are no unmoved anythings at all, thus the question whether there is more than one is meaningsless.
 
AnAtheist said:
Unmoved in what reference frame? That has nothing to do with causing a motion.
An unmoved mover in one reference frame is moving in another, and there is no special one - that is basic physics. This philosophic idea of the unmoved mover is outdated, there is no unmovement, hence there are no unmoved anythings at all, thus the question whether there is more than one is meaningsless.
Click to expand...
In the concept of the unmoved mover, Aristotle was talking about motion only as it pertains to the cause of motion, not the nature of motion. It’s simply another way of looking at the first cause argument. To say otherwise is to completely ignore how Aristotle defined the terms when presenting the unmoved mover argument in his book Metaphysics.

The title of the book is a clear enough indication that the subject is philosophical in nature, not a discourse on physical science.
 
Absolutely not. I don’t want to go out and type a whole long paper. So if you really want to know read questions 2, 3, 7, and 11 in the First part of the Summa of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
 
AnAtheist said:
Unmoved in what reference frame? That has nothing to do with causing a motion.
An unmoved mover in one reference frame is moving in another, and there is no special one - that is basic physics. This philosophic idea of the unmoved mover is outdated, there is no unmovement, hence there are no unmoved anythings at all, thus the question whether there is more than one is meaningsless.
Click to expand...
“Physically” speaking, I would agree. But you argument doesn’t tell us that there cannot be a being which is the cause of all motion, itself not being moved by another. You assume that all is physical and therefore the only kind of cause that can possibly exist is a physical cause (a circler argument); but the argument from motion is not an argument from physics or science. Its a metaphysical argument about being and beings in general, and logic dictates that in order to account for the existence of motion (motion defined as the actualisation of potential), there must necessarily be that which is not moving, not in time, but is the cause of motion non the less, since potentiality cannot come out of absolutely nothing.
 
This is the exact point we were making in another thread. The best way to make this clear for those who only think in terms of physical motion, is to use the word “change”. But yes, a reduction from potentiality to actuality is good too.
 
In my opinion, there cannot be more than one ‘unmovable mover’ because for something to be ‘unmovable’ yet a ‘mover’, that thing must be ‘ultimate’ and ‘perfect’ at the same time. There is just one ‘Ultimate perfection’. In other words, since there cannot be more than one ‘ultimate perfection’, there cannot be more than one ‘unmovable mover’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top