So where are we to this point?
- We are certain that the self-moving moved movers that Thomas speaks of are the Celestial Spheres which Aristotle says move everything under them. The lowest spheres, that of the sun and our planets cause the generation and corruption and the changes we see in our world, which Aristotle calls the " imperfect " sublunar world. But it is important to note that this does not include creation because, though imperfect, the world is eternal in his view.
The highest heaven is moved directly by the Unmoved Mover. Concerning this mover, Thomas says in his commentary on Book 12, Chapter 7 of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ( verse 1067 of the commentary ) : " 1067. Now the first mover causes motion as something intelligible and something appetible; for these alone cause motion without being moved…For we desire a thing because it seems good rather than consider it good because we desire it; for understanding is the principle of desire. And the intellect is moved by an intelligible object. "
- Therefore, " the moving part in the first self-moving being must he appetitive and apprehending. Now, in a motion that takes place through appetite and apprehension, he who has the appetite and the apprehension is a moved mover, while the appetible and apprehended is the unmoved mover. Since, therefore, the first mover of all things, whom we call God ( from the body of 44, 2 of SCG given in post #1 above ). " And we should add, it is intelligent as well since it understands or reflects on " intelligibles. "
This is perfectly Aristotelian because Aristotle taught, and Thomas concurres in many places, that the first self-moving being ( the highest sphere and indeed the lower spheres as well ) are composed of a moved and a moving part, which he calls a soul, which moves the sphere. But the soul of this sphere is appetitive and apprehending. It apprehends the perfection of the Unmoved Mover and wills ( desires ) to imitate the Unmoved Mover by making itself more perfect.
At this point there is a question. Exactly how does the soul of the first self mover apprehend the Unmoved Mover? I confess that Thomas’ explanation in the remainder of Book 12 doesn’t seem intelligible to me. I think the closest we can come to understanding this is Thomas’ explanation of how Angels have a natural knowledge of God, which you can read in S.T., 1, ques. 56. According to Thomas’ explanation an Angel’s apprehension of God is primarily through a reflection upon the goodness of his own nature, since it is not given to any creature to see the essence of God. An Angel of course would recognize, since he existed that he did not cause his own existnece, and that he did not cause his own intellictual perfection, but that his own existence was caused by One who had perfect existence and by the One who was perfectly intelligent. But an Angel’s apprehension of the Divine Power and Intelligence is much greater and more certain than our own.
So we must assume that Aristotle’s first self-moved mover is something similar to an Angelic being. For he says ( through Thomas ) that: " Since, therefore, the first mover of all things, whom we call God, is an absolutely unmoved mover, He must be related to the mover that is a part of the self-moving being as the appetible is to the one who has the appetite. Not, however, as something appetible by sensible appetite, since sensible appetite is not of that which is good absolutely but of this particular good, since the apprehension of the sense is likewise particular; whereas that which is good and appetible absolutely is prior to that which is good and appetible here and now. The first mover, then, must be appetible as an object of intellect, and thus the mover that desires it must be intelligent. All the more, therefore, will the first appetible be intelligent, since the one desiring it is intelligent in act by being joined to it as an intelligible. Therefore, making the supposition that the first mover moves himself, as the philosophers intended, we must say that God is intelligent. "
So the first self-moving being does not comprehend God directly but indirectly, as Angels do and as men do. The angelic like nature of the first-self moving being would be absolutely convinced, through self reflection and through his knowledge of the lower spheres and the sublunar spheres that the Unmoved Mover existed. He would be futher convinced of his own intellectual perfection but that it was not absolute perfection and his desire for absolute perfection meant that there was One who was absolutely perfect. And since he recognized his own intellectual perfection then the one he wished to imitate must also be intellectual, but absolutely so.
I would caution that the idea of creation does not enter into Thomas’ explanation. When he says " that which is good and appetible absolutely is prior to that which is good and appetible here and now…," he is not referring to creation, although it can have that meaning. First he explains in book 12 ( I think ) that it can mean something like a logical order of goodness or aptness, that which is best is prior to that which is less good. Secondly, Thomas is arguing with the understanding ( for the sake of argument ) that the universe is eternal. Thirdly, Aristotle said there was no such act as creation.
A lot of questions can be raised about SCG 44, 2 and a lot of questions can be raised about my own analysis. My conclusion is that Thomas’ conclusion is correct but not as convincing as it might have been had he given more elaboration. But I may be wrong. If any Professional Philosophers out there whould like to jump in, please do so, because I am far from certain of my own analysis. I have sent my questions to a number of professional sources but so far none have responded. My thanks to Dr. Bonnette for his kind contributions.
Linus2nd
