The Unmoved Mover - ambiguity

[Linusthe2nd]

I am glad you weren’t Aquinas’s spiritual director .

I’m sure Thomas would not object to what I said. He was a man of Faith and he would certainly agree with what Pius XII had to say in Humani Generis ( ccc, para 37 ),

" 37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13 "

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.14 ( also from Humani Generis )

Our Catechism is a treasure, every one should study it.

Linus2nd

 

[John_Martin]

This could mean a number of things either singly or in combination…
(a) it sets another in motion yet is not itself in motion in the same respect?
(b) it sets another in motion and is itself in motion in the same respect?
(c) it sets another in motion and is itself in motion but not necessarily in the same respect?
(d) it sets another in motion and is itself not in motion at all (though it may be “in act” eg creation ex nihilo is not “motion”)?
(e) no other thing ever puts this thing into motion?

Any thoughts on which of the above may be rightly affirmed of Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover?

Is it the same for Aquinas?

I wrote this in another forum, not knowing of this one, but it seems to fit here after having read all the posts. The questions seem to arise from not admitting intelligence to the First Cause, Unmoved Mover, or what ever term used. Pure intellect, pure knowing, fully realized or actualized, never changing what is known, from always. Including always knowing something “other” that is “not always”.
Here it is:
If the First Cause is Uncaused, nothing causes him to be rational, nor to create.
If he is Actual and unmoved then he never “moves” but is complete.
If there is a creation, a universe, created by this being, it is not a “new action” or new actuality of the Causer.

In an intelligible world, where all things can be understood by an intellect, cause works to an end, to a goal, to a result. A heavy body in motion is on a course to somewhere in its line of motion, and if it bumps a small body on a different line of motion, the light body is deflected - the goal? or end? The heavy body continues in a slightly altered line of motion to a slightly altered new goal, the new goal caused by the light body. The light body moves in a greatly altered line of motion to a new goal, the new end caused by the heavy body.

We understand this in virtue of our intellect, which is provided with observation of material reality by our senses. With our intellect we also understand that we are able to intelligently cause things to have a pre-planned goal.

If the First Causer does not change, does nothing new or different than before (something would be caused in the first cause if there were change), then without intellect, those things caused by the first causer would be “eternal” and “repeated”. “Creations” would be popping up in infinite succession. But the creations popping up would have repeatedly random content with no guarantee that they would not disintegrate in the next moment - we observe that there are laws of nature, but there is no guarantee that the laws of nature will not change in the next moment. If there were only “one creation” by the First Cause, then the First Cause would be changeable, and therefore caused, because it would be creating, but then change into not-creating, which would therefore not be the logical First Cause.

If the First Cause is intellect, intellectual, then his eternal reality is knowing, and only that, knowing all in completeness, his knowing never changing. With this knowing it is possible to know, to understand, some “object” that is not him. From always he could know something that is not always. And if he knows it, then at some “point” not always begins, is created, just as he knows it from always. What he knows as “not always” is intelligible because he knows it. It exists, comes into being, when “not always” begins because he knows it being. And it has an end, a goal, of being what he knows just as he knows it.

He has not changed, not done something new by creating, not had a new movement (so he himself is not caused nor does he cause himself to move). A non-intelligent first cause would have to, as said, constantly be duplicating causation, yet without any reasonable goal.

How does that sound?

 

[Richca]

Aquinas speculates on this in SCG. He suggested that a Celestial Body could be very close to Prime Matter (which doesn’t exist in its own right) such that all its potentiality (which is very minimal) is fully actuated meaning it can never change/corrupt (it has no potency to) and so would be eternal. I believe angelic natures, while simple as you say, are still composed of potency and act. Celestial Bodies, by this account, are totally activated (=“pure act”?).

God is the only being who is pure act. All other beings have a composition of potency and act. Angelic natures, though pure forms, are in potency to the act of being or the act of existence. Their existence is not identical to their nature or form such as in God. They have a participated existence.
Material substances such as celestial bodies have a double composition of potency and act, namely, matter and form and essence or substance and existence. Nothing composed out of matter can be pure act as matter is simply potentiality and form is the act of matter.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

God is the only being who is pure act. All other beings have a composition of potency and act. Angelic natures, though pure forms, are in potency to the act of being or the act of existence. Their existence is not identical to their nature or form such as in God. They have a participated existence.
Material substances such as celestial bodies have a double composition of potency and act, namely, matter and form and essence or substance and existence. Nothing composed out of matter can be pure act as matter is simply potentiality and form is the act of matter.

Yet Aquinas says so musing on the nature of Celestial Bodies.

Obviously the essence of CB is not to exist though!

 

[Richca]

Yet Aquinas says so musing on the nature of Celestial Bodies.

Obviously the essence of CB is not to exist though!

If you believe that Aquinas says that celestial bodies are pure act, please provide us with the citation from his writings. Aquinas says that only God is pure act and there is only one God. All other beings are composed of potency and act and this applies especially to celestial bodies since they are composed out of matter and matter is potentiality.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you believe that Aquinas says that celestial bodies are pure act,

Richca if you carefully reread my original statement you will see that my assertion was more nuanced than what you have attempted to paraphrase above.