Per se VS. accidental?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They could be created by one thing and be tending towards another. Are you saying that Aristotle thought the end is pulling everything towards It, but that it was involved in the “eternal beginning” of it (however one makes sense of such a thing)
 
thinkandmull said:
They could be created by one thing and be tending towards another. Are you saying that Aristotle thought the end is pulling everything towards It, but that it was involved in the “eternal beginning” of it (however one makes sense of such a thing)
Click to expand...
Once created the created substance desires to be perfect as the Final Cause is perfect.
Aquinas claims that Aristotle taught the Final Cause also caused the existence of the world ( see SCG on the existence of God WS. ). However, if one follows Aquinas’ references to Aristotle on the proofs, as explained in the SCG, it is very hard to see how Thomas gets there. Then too the description of the Final Cause in Book 12 of Metaphysics describes the Final Cause as being totally aloof from the rest of the world and acting only as a Final Cause. That he could be a moving, efficient, material, and formal cause are not mentioned. So, there you have it, it is just my opinion.

Linus2nd
 
Summa q 75 art 1 says “if there is anything that moves and is not moved, ‘it is the cause of eternal, unvaring movement,’ as we find proved in the Physics”. I remember his attempt at the proof in the Physics (which I think I remember you saying you disagreed with Linus?). So maybe he changed his mind in the Metaphysics. Or maybe we have a different translation of Aristotle than Aquinas had. I’ve checked some of his citations of Aristotle and a number of times it didn’t check out. Who knows what translation Aquinas had
 
thinkandmull said:
Summa q 75 art 1 says “if there is anything that moves and is not moved, ‘it is the cause of eternal, unvaring movement,’ as we find proved in the Physics”. I remember his attempt at the proof in the Physics (which I think I remember you saying you disagreed with Linus?). So maybe he changed his mind in the Metaphysics. Or maybe we have a different translation of Aristotle than Aquinas had. I’ve checked some of his citations of Aristotle and a number of times it didn’t check out. Who knows what translation Aquinas had
Click to expand...
Exactly, that is the problem I found as well. The only thing I can say is that Thomas was giving Aristotle credit for something he didn’t actually say. In any case, it is clear that Thomas thought differently. But why only movement caused by love is covered in Book 12 of Metaphysics is a mystery.

Linus2nd
 
The answer is yes, at least that was the opinion of Aquinas, and that is all that matters because his proofs for the existence of God, both in the SCG and in the ST, are based not on what we think Aristotle taught but on what Thomas thought he said. This puts a new light on the First Way which is based on motion.

The way the Prime Mover moves things, according to Thomas, is ultimately by creating them. In creating them he gives some the power to move themselves and others the power to move lower forms. And by " moving " we are not talking simply about causing things to move from place to place but by causing new forms to appear, by which things move both themselves and other things.

I will open a new thread soon explaining my sources for what Thomas’ thoughts on this subject were. 🙂

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top