Thomas Aquinas, The Unmoved Mover

[davidv]

Aristotle’s logic (used by Aquinas) has known flaws. Aquinas’ argument (sometimes taken as proofs when they were intended to be indications) also have known flaws, sometimes induced by the underlying weaknesses in Aristotle’s logic.

God hasn’t changed, but man’s ability to build a logical argument has. Man’s understanding of nature has. Man’s understanding of logic, of time of material, of motion, has.

So how do these flaws invalidate the necessity of an unmoved mover?

 

[kbachler]

So how do these flaws invalidate the necessity of an unmoved mover?

Some detail of issues with the unmoved mover argument are earlier in the thread; Aristotle’s logic basically assumes existence. (This flaw is what leads to the famous barber paradox.) The change in how logic is understood allows a better understanding of contradictions which in turn allows a better understanding of existence which in turn allows the discovery of examples that contradict what Aquinas proposes.

The unmoved mover argument, though, has several flaws:

“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

1. Aquinas uses Aristotle’s potentiality argument for motion. This argument is intended to not be temporal (but rather hierarchical), but actual motion by nature is temporal, so the argument is fundamentally not self-consistent. Our concept of an unmoved mover today is fundamentally different (and more robust) than the concept in Aquinas’ time.
2. “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another,…”. The mathematics of motion is much superior today than in Aquinas’ time, when it was basically nonexistent. This statement by Aquinas is demonstrably false via mathematics.
3. “But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.” This statement is also demonstrably false via mathematics.
4. “Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.” This statement is demonstrably false as it does not allow for degrees of potentiality, and as it does not allow for “strange situations” now known to be normal in the universe. A thing is a wave and a particle at the same time - to Aquinas (and Aristotle) this would be impossible.
5. “It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.” This statement is by mathematics and QED examples, demonstrably false.
6. “Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.” As 5. is false, this conclusion is false.
7. “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover;” Assumed, but for no reason. There’s no reason why there MUST BE a first mover. Functions sometimes extend indefinitely. This also basically creates petitio principii, because at this point he has assumed what he sets out to prove. The reason why he feels he can? “…consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover;” So in otherwords, there must be a first mover to put everything in motion because otherwise the subsequent movers wouldn’t be put in motion because the first mover puts them in motion. That’s circular.

 

[tdgesq]

So how do these flaws invalidate the necessity of an unmoved mover?

That is a good question. I suppose if we had observed examples of uncaused or purely self-caused events, whether at the quantum level or not, then it may be reasonable to conclude that there is no necessity for some other unmoved mover (God). I don’t know of any such instance. Mathematicians use the concept of infinity (lack of a bound) frequently and successfully to predict events in the real world, but this does give infinity ontological status. In fact, when an actual existing infinite is postulated it leads to numerous absurd (contradictory) results, Hilbert’s Hotel being a prime example. Despite advances in mathematics and the other specialized sciences, I still believe Aquinas’ cosmological argument to be valid.

 

[davidv]

Some detail of issues with the unmoved mover argument are earlier in the thread; Aristotle’s logic basically assumes existence. (This flaw is what leads to the famous barber paradox.) The change in how logic is understood allows a better understanding of contradictions which in turn allows a better understanding of existence which in turn allows the discovery of examples that contradict what Aquinas proposes.

{snip}

Why is the assumption of “existence” unreasonable?

In reviewing the barber paradox - How does the creation of an arbitrary rule “It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule:…” (wikipedia artical on barber paradox) that creates an contradiction be meaningful in this discussion?

 

[kbachler]

That is a good question. I suppose if we had observed examples of uncaused or purely self-caused events, whether at the quantum level or not, then it may be reasonable to conclude that there is no necessity for some other unmoved mover (God). I don’t know of any such instance. Mathematicians use the concept of infinity (lack of a bound) frequently and successfully to predict events in the real world, but this does give infinity ontological status. In fact, when an actual existing infinite is postulated it leads to numerous absurd (contradictory) results, Hilbert’s Hotel being a prime example. Despite advances in mathematics and the other specialized sciences, I still believe Aquinas’ cosmological argument to be valid.

Or if we had observed examples of a first mover, then maybe there would be a reason to assume the existence of one? But all of our examples are really of intermediate movers, correct? And so we’ve only seen an intermediate mover start a mover - NEVER a first mover.

Hilbert’s Hotel is not really a paradox; it is an illustration of Cantor’s pairing method to demonstrate the principles involved in showing that there are hierarchies of infinities. While it is odd, to us, it is logical.

 

[kbachler]

Why is the assumption of “existence” unreasonable?

In reviewing the barber paradox - How does the creation of an arbitrary rule “It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule:…” (wikipedia artical on barber paradox) that creates an contradiction be meaningful in this discussion?

It is unreasonable because not all things imagined, exist.

For reference, here is an example of the barber’s paradox:

Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men in town who do not shave themselves.
Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself?
Asking this, however, we discover that the situation presented is in fact impossible:
If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself.
If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself.

Suppose there is a collection of movers (Aquinas did.) If there is a first mover: it moves (directly or indirectly) the movers that do not move themselves. (This is what Aquinas states, that a first mover is necessary to put all the other movers in motion. This IS a description of the concept of the first mover.) Does the first mover move itself?

If the mover does not move itself, it must abide by the rule and move itself.
If the mover does move itself, it must abide by the rule and not move itself.

Consequently, under Aristotelian logic, the concept of a first mover is in fact, self contradictory, and so Aquinas couldn’t have even intelligently asked the question.

Hence, if Aquinas is correct in his argument, God cannot exist, certainly not what he set out to prove.

The point is, Aquinas can’t even logically try to make the argument He tried to make, because he is actually assuming existence, not arguing for existence.

 

[grannymh]

Why is the assumption of “existence” unreasonable?

In reviewing the barber paradox - How does the creation of an arbitrary rule “It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule:…” (wikipedia artical on barber paradox) that creates an contradiction be meaningful in this discussion?

I absolutely know nothing but what I am reading in an introduction to one of Aquinas’ early papers. It is my understanding that early in Aquinas’ career “being” meant exist.

Let me correct the opening statement. I have the required minor in philosophy but do not remember very much. One of the courses coincided with my nap time. And another was from Descartes to Communism in which I spaced out the philosophers who had trouble with existence and doubted just about everything else. Beyond passing the course, I had no use for these nuts.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[tdgesq]

Or if we had observed examples of a first mover, then maybe there would be a reason to assume the existence of one?

That would certainly be a good reason, but I thought your assertion was that quantum physicists have observed uncaused or self-caused events. My only point was that if they have then that may be a good reason to discount the necessity of a first mover as asserted by Aquinas.

But all of our examples are really of intermediate movers, correct? And so we’ve only seen an intermediate mover start a mover - NEVER a first mover.

I am in complete agreement with you. This is our experience of the world. It is also the basis for Aquinas’ first premise, which is whatever is put in motion must be put in motion by another - or there is no known case in which a thing is found to be an efficient cause of itself. My understanding is that you disagree with that premise. Why?

Hilbert’s Hotel is not really a paradox; it is an illustration of Cantor’s pairing method to demonstrate the principles involved in showing that there are hierarchies of infinities. While it is odd, to us, it is logical.

I for one agree that Cantor’s set theory is internally consistent from a mathematical standpoint. The trouble begins when it is proposed as evidence for an ontological claim that an actual infinite is possible. I don’t think Dr. Craig has a problem with the theory as such, just when attempts are made to apply it to what can exist in the universe. This is always a danger when attempting to apply abstractions of quantity and extension to reality.

The use of negative numbers is an example. No one has ever observed a negative number of something. We have all observed the “subtraction” of one object from a set of objects. From these experiences we abstract a concept of negative integers. However, negative integers don’t exist in material reality, except as perhaps a non-material concept. The same is true of infinite extension. It proxies well mathematically for very large quantities, but it doesn’t give us any evidence for an actual infinite quantity existing in the material universe. When we do a thought experiment like Hilbert’s about what this would be like it turns into the same quantity of hotel residents regardless of how many we remove or shift around. Even if you can swallow all of the attendant absurdities (and there are many) then you still have to contend whether it is reasonable as opposed to possible.

 

[Betterave]

I have read Aristotle’s Physics, where he defines motion, and Metaphysics where he defines substance, potentiality and actuality. I made a point of including sections of Categories, Prior Analytics, and Posterior Analytics when I taught logic. I also read Organon, Politics and Nicomachean Ethics…

Just a note:

Aristotle’s Organon (meaning ‘tool’ or ‘instrument’) is simply the name given to refer collectively to the standard collection of his six works on logic:
Categories,
On Interpretation,
Prior Analytics,
Posterior Analytics,
Topics, and
Sophistical Refutations.

Right?? So it doesn’t really make sense to say “I read Organon,” and certainly not to say that you read “Organon” in addition to Categories, Prior Analytics, and Posterior Analytics. Also, all of these names or titles, with the exception of On Interpretation, are usually prefaced with the definite article when used in a sentence.

 

[mark_a]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place

This is just a brief description of Aquinas’ movement theory. I hope it explains it to those of you who do not know it. I am a full believer in God and so I believe St Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas states that everything moves. Nothing can move on its own so therefore there must an unmoved mover. Aquinas also talks about potentiality and actuality. Wood has the potential to be hot and fire is actually hot. To make something turn from being potentially hot, there has to be something that is actually hot. EG Fire.

I’ve grown partial to the expression “The uncaused cause” I heard from Tim Staples. Don’t have a clue as to where he got it.

 

[JDaniel]

Creation is ex nihilo, not ex Deo. So no, God is not the material cause of the universe.

Betterave:

Correct. God is not any kind of matter. Matter is always the material cause:
This stable something that persists through change is the subject that we call matter. In the case of substantial change, this subject is primary matter; and by contrast the subject in accidental change, the substance that receives new accidents, may be called secondary matter. - Com. on the Phys., Bk. I, les. 1, 5.

Again, no, God is not the formal cause of all things or of the universe. Created forms are.

Again, correct. God is not the character [requested or required by the matter] towards which the motions of matter tend.
Form, …, is the end of matter. It intrinsically determines and intrinsically organizes matter. As substantial form united to primary matter, form or the formal cause brings about a species or essence. - On Truth, q. 28, a. 7; q. 9, a. 3, reply 6.

Yes, he is an efficient cause, he brings the world into being.

Here, though, I would disagree. There is a huge difference between creation and causation, as you no doubt know. As you rightly point out, creation is the bringing of something into existence where there was nothing before. That men have muddied the original meaning of the verb, to create, is a shame and I’m sure was done for the specific purpose of confusing the religious-minded.

No, not all things must end, and for things that do end, their substances do not revert back to God. That is not compatible with Catholic belief, surely? And I have no idea what you mean when you state that “all dependent things are eventually assumed into independent things by nature” - care to explain?

Your respondee misunderstands the meaning of “end” as used in this context. End, here, means, purpose or reason. The end, purpose, or reason of, or for, the creation of the universe can only be conjectured. But, God did have a purpose in creating the universe, that much we can arrive at logically.

God bless, Betterave,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

But see, the problem with both arguments (“If a house were eternal, its standing would be caused by its foundation, even though one does not precede the other in time.” and the motion argument) is that OUR concept of motion, OUR concept of cause, is firmly founded on (and literally caused by) our reason developing in a temporal universe which allows us to develop a sense of time and space.

To then try to objectively “de-temporalize” the concepts is absurd - just as in hindsight it was absurd for Newton to think of the universe as an empty Euclidean space that we can suddenly put one object in and push it to derive laws of motion. Einstein shows that while this works in the simple case, the concept of even adding the box would (essentially) cause Minkowski space-time.

Thus, the Aquinas argument has a fatal structural fault that undermines the entire logical scheme. That is, his argument only works if his proof is correct, which means the argument is petitio principii

But that’s not so. Certainly there are motions of movers in series that are simultaneous. One such example is the arm moving the hand moving the stick that moves a ball along a sidewalk. And, if one traces that motion back a little further, other exigencies can be added to the event.

Of course, one can say that there is a slight lag between the motions of the parts that is imperceptible. I’m not sure that is so, but nevertheless, it is not important. It is representative of virtual simultaneity.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Your respondee misunderstands the meaning of “end” as used in this context. End, here, means, purpose or reason. The end, purpose, or reason of, or for, the creation of the universe can only be conjectured. But, God did have a purpose in creating the universe, that much we can arrive at logically.

jd

Since I am not yet familiar with the language of Aquinas and am just beginning to understand the scholastic environment, my first thought is that the end or purpose of God is pure existence or pure being with no restrictions. While the first centuries were filled with debate, God was accepted as existing. Thus the various debates concerned how He existed. In our century, people work backwards to find the existence of God.

Starting with God Himself, I think of Him as sharing or giving existence to His creation. Thus, having existence would be the end or purpose of the universe. Human nature, which unites both the material and spiritual worlds, gives us the opportunity to share in God’s life through knowledge and will. Thus, we have a twofold end or purpose. First we exist in the universe, i.e., in the material realm and second we exist in the spiritual realm which requires our unique spiritual souls. The second end of human nature is the spiritual existence with direction or purpose toward eternal existence with the Beatific Vision.

Some of my reading describes the unity of soul and body to be so profound that one can consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. This union forms a single nature. Refer to Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 362-367.

In my humble opinion, the reason God can be the unmoved mover or uncaused cause is that God is the first or original Being existing eternally. If I am understanding the 13th century correctly, it wasn’t necessary to prove God’s existence, but rather to account for His attributes through the reasoning of philosophy, In turn, like a circle, His attributes not only describe His existence, they are existence. Thus, God is Divine Nature.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[JDaniel]

Ex nihilo is ex Deo, because God eternally precedes the void and the void of nothingness comes from His somethingness (as it were). We’re looking at a mystical, universal interpretation here. The holy Word of God, Genesis 1:1-2, says “In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth, and the Earth was void and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep”. If this void of emptiness was the initial state of material existence between “nothing” and “something”, it follows that even the “ex nihilo” comes “ex Deo”. Void is emptiness, and to be empty is to be nothing. If void empty nothingness was the initial state of material existence, then God must precede “nothing”, in some ineffable way.

I called God the material cause because it is from His eternally-extant Necessity and spiritual existence that all things whatever proceed. My notion is entirely opposed to Pantheism.

Glorious:

You have to think this through: how is it even remotely possible for an infinite being to have a before or an after, like a snake slithering through the grass? And creation is procession and production. Christ and the Holy Spirit are exigencies created by God, with the word meaning procession from. God can’t be matter. Secondary and Primary Matter are things the lack something. They lack the character that will differentiate them from all else. God lacks nothing, nor is God matter, which is precisely what the word “material” means in the phrase “material cause.”

I believe the Church teaches that created forms were first conceived of in the infinitely perfect mind of God, the “Thought” who we call “the Father”. They were spoken into existence by the “Word” that we call “the Son”. The first form, out of which all forms in creation are taken, must be the Blessed Trinity - an intellectual and not a material or imagination-based form, but still a form of a sort. For example: since all created things are in relationship to one another, we can say that the Blessed Trinity is the initial form of universal relationship, because it is always perfectly in relationship, with its three Persons in one God.

"Form is the end of matter. It intrinsically determines and intrinsically organizes matter. As substantial form united to primary matter, form or the formal cause brings about a species or essence.- St. Thomas’ On Truth, q. 28, a. 7; q. 9, a. 3, reply 6.

Once more, this is a mystical interpretation of super- material ‘substance’, ‘essence’, ‘necessity’, and ‘form’. Please forgive me if I’m not clear, or if this is heretical. I am here to learn and be educated by experienced Thomists - something which I am definitely not. I’m applying his thought-system, not necessarily his answers.

You’re getting close. Although the four causes are inextricably related to each other, they are not so strictly related that they depend upon one another in some absolute way. They are separate, discernible parts in the schema of motion: local and essentially subordinated: i.e., the simple motion of simple things (opposed to complex things: things with parts) and/or coming-to-be.

1. All things really must end, except God. If there was any one thing that never did end, it would share the eternal aspect of divinity, thus nullifying God’s necessity. For example: in our very substance, we human beings are not inherently immortal; God can destroy us, but in His beautiful and just love He does not. God alone cannot be destroyed by any means, and that means God alone has no end but Himself, no consideration but Himself, and no love but Himself. To say that all things must end is simply true, or else God does not exist (because then there would be at least one thing that self-sufficiently exists by itself, obviating the need for God).

1. By “all dependent things are assumed into independent things by nature”, I meant to say something like this: a plant is entirely dependent upon the sun for its essential functions. Despite the need for water and soil, we can say that the sun - and the photosynthesis which it initiates in the plant - is the prime mover of the plant’s essential life functions at an immediate level. In this little system, the sun is an independent creature and the plant is a dependent creature, relying on that one independent creature for its continued life.

“End,” in Thomistic usage here, means reason for or purpose, not “finality.”

In terms of causality: when the sun dies, the plant will die. The plant’s lack of necessity is assumed into the sun’s necessity, in this instance. When the former dies, it is only because the latter dies. This means that all things dependent on other things must inevitably be taken up or ‘assumed’ into that which they’re dependent upon. I’m not saying that God is dead, or that God will die at the end of time. I am saying that since God is the proper object of all creation, all things will, causally-speaking, be directed towards Him, the “Life” that is beyond mere living.

Actually, when the universe dies by entropy, its cold, remaining objects may simply continue to persist. Lifelessly. Although they may continue to move: further out into oblivion. Some physicists think that the universe will re-collapse; but, there’s absolutely no indication of that possibility. It’s no more than a conjecture.

Sorry to be confusing.

Well, OK, you’re forgiven.

God bless,
jd

 

[charlescritt]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place
This is a modern summary of Aquinas’ movement Theory, but he borrowed it from Aristotle and reinterpreted it in light of our Christian faith. The deduction of an unmoved mover comes from Aristotle’s belief that there were six primary motions. It can be found in the Organon in The Categories at the beginning of Chapter 14. I quote, “There are six sorts of movement: generation, destruction, increase, diminution, alteration and change of place…It is evident in all but one case that all these sorts of movement are distinct each from each…Thus alteration is a distinct sort of motion…”
In case these sound unfamiliar, they line up with the modern theory of eleven dimensional super symmetry where the existence of five precursors to the six motions are also necessary. It’s the nature verses nurture debate or the binary reward and punishment theory as well. What is necessary for things to be as they are is what we’re after:

                                     Essence/                                   Being

Genus: King or destruction Queen or Generation
Difference: Rook or decrease Bishop or increase
Species: Knight or alteration Pawn or change of place

    If you think of the first law of thermodynamics which is that energy cannot be created or destroyed you will eventually come to an unmoved moving source, at least that was Aristotle's contention and is similar to the big bang theory.  I've never heard of a good sophistical refutation of this theory, in fact the closest one is the usual.  We have all these extensions for our senses like the microscope and the telescope and so on, therefore we are smarter.
   I plan to be speaking more about this this week so please respond and tune in.

This is just a brief description of Aquinas’ movement theory. I hope it explains it to those of you who do not know it. I am a full believer in God and so I believe St Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas states that everything moves. Nothing can move on its own so therefore there must an unmoved mover. Aquinas also talks about potentiality and actuality. Wood has the potential to be hot and fire is actually hot. To make something turn from being potentially hot, there has to be something that is actually hot. EG Fire.

 

[charlescritt]

Can you explain this in detail, please? Infinity is simply the absence of constraints. How can true, proper infinity be shared by any being, or exist in “sizes”? Infinity is an absolute quality which can only be One, or else the other infinite thing would cancel out the first infinite thing’s infinity.

Well, that was something of the point…

I’m not understanding how you can come to such conclusions without any reasons. You’ve just said that my premise (and therefore conclusion) is flawed, but haven’t said why. It looks like you’ve misunderstood my argument, calling it unclear, and so you automatically invalidate it. Why? I’d appreciate an explanation!

You two seem to have found the adversarial moment, but you can have both. For different sizes of infinity consider the domains of the different angels and for the absolute in their midst consider the source i.e. God. Also see my post on Aristotle's six motions.

 

[charlescritt]

I would be interested to see some examples within QED that demonstrate something in existence (a being) is the efficient cause of itself. I know you stated you had given examples, but I couldn’t find them in the thread.

In QED, the example of an efficient cause is the strange quark, because of it’s alternating ability. Scientific American has had some interesting articles on this and it led to an asymmetrical view of the universe. In all other quarks their nature is distinct each from each, positive or negative to varying degrees; but it could be argued that the strange quark, the ability to alternate, is not a combination of the other quarks, but is it’s own distinct efficient cause. Please take my word for this, I don’t want to be led into an endless research project to prove myself to all of you, by digging up historical quotes forever.

 

[charlescritt]

Some detail of issues with the unmoved mover argument are earlier in the thread; Aristotle’s logic basically assumes existence. (This flaw is what leads to the famous barber paradox.) The change in how logic is understood allows a better understanding of contradictions which in turn allows a better understanding of existence which in turn allows the discovery of examples that contradict what Aquinas proposes.

The unmoved mover argument, though, has several flaws:

1. Aquinas uses Aristotle’s potentiality argument for motion. This argument is intended to not be temporal (but rather hierarchical), but actual motion by nature is temporal, so the argument is fundamentally not self-consistent. Our concept of an unmoved mover today is fundamentally different (and more robust) than the concept in Aquinas’ time.
2. “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another,…”. The mathematics of motion is much superior today than in Aquinas’ time, when it was basically nonexistent. This statement by Aquinas is demonstrably false via mathematics.
3. “But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality.” This statement is also demonstrably false via mathematics.
4. “Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.” This statement is demonstrably false as it does not allow for degrees of potentiality, and as it does not allow for “strange situations” now known to be normal in the universe. A thing is a wave and a particle at the same time - to Aquinas (and Aristotle) this would be impossible.
5. “It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.” This statement is by mathematics and QED examples, demonstrably false.
6. “Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.” As 5. is false, this conclusion is false.
7. “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover;” Assumed, but for no reason. There’s no reason why there MUST BE a first mover. Functions sometimes extend indefinitely. This also basically creates petitio principii, because at this point he has assumed what he sets out to prove. The reason why he feels he can? “…consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover;” So in otherwords, there must be a first mover to put everything in motion because otherwise the subsequent movers wouldn’t be put in motion because the first mover puts them in motion. That’s circular.

In regards to number four, I would have to say you are wrong. Aristotle in his discussion on alteration admits that this source can have it’s own distinct cause. The argument about simultaneity has this quality and we experience it daily. When someone speaks they don’t always say what they mean. See the Organon, The Categories, Chapter 14. In modern terms it’s the strange quark, which is sort of the James Clerk Maxwell’s Demon of modern atomic theory. The thing we need to admit is that, because of Democritus and Lucippas, the greek atomists, Aristotle basicly had that theory figured out and accounted for. In fact, the entire edifice of his work is based on this distinction between being nice or being mean, which by the way are two affections in one person.

 

[charlescritt]

In regards to number four, I would have to say you are wrong. Aristotle in his discussion on alteration admits that this source can have it’s own distinct cause. The argument about simultaneity has this quality and we experience it daily. When someone speaks they don’t always say what they mean. See the Organon, The Categories, Chapter 14. In modern terms it’s the strange quark, which is sort of the James Clerk Maxwell’s Demon of modern atomic theory.

 

[charlescritt]

I have read Aristotle’s Physics, where he defines motion, and Metaphysics where he defines substance, potentiality and actuality. I made a point of including sections of Categories, Prior Analytics, and Posterior Analytics when I taught logic. I also read Organon, Politics and Nicomachean Ethics… It has been some time since I have reviewed these (they generally don’t come up in an average week.) I had the good fortune of participating in a Great Books program, both as a student and later as faculty; the works were required reading.

I am familiar with his four causes, which are intended to answer the question “why” - he is not using cause (generally) in the same sense we use it today.

Aristotle primarily covers this in two places: Physics II 3 and Metaphysics V 2, although some principles also arise elsewhere (Posterior Analytics for example.)

A summary of the four causes is:
The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue.
The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, the artisan wanted to cast the form of the statue - perhaps to express creativity or perhaps for money.
Another example: health is the end of walking, losing weight, prescription drugs, and surgical care.

Were you thinking of the Four Causes when you thought of the six motions?

No, but you are just the person I want to discuss this with. The four causes are a summary after the fact in Aristotle’s development. In fact you’d probably be lost trying to tell me how Aristotle came up with syllogistic reasoning from the four causes. In the Organon, The Categories, at the beginning of Chapter 14, there is a passage where he rather bluntly says, "There are six sorts of motion generation, destruction, increase, diminution, alteration and change of place. If you take this statement from Aristotle, as the primary defining statement of who he was, you come up with the Aristotle that can enlighten you and not confuse you… It’s a highly metaphorical statement, which represents the core of his thought and you’d be lucky to find it explained anywhere in all the commentaries of his thinking. These motions are further bound by the categories of Essence, Being(or existence), Genus, Difference and Species. There’s a theory in modern physics known as eleven dimensional super symmetry, which backs this his theory well. It has become the basis for our legal and political system. You get to syllogistic reasoning by knowing how to do the six motions. In nature, the essence of the genus is destruction or King(NATURE), the existence or being of the genus is generation or Queen(NUTURE), the essence of the species is alteration or Knight, the being of the species is change of place or pawn, the essence of the difference is decrease or rook, the being of the difference is the Bishop or increase.
Betterave mentioned the petitio principii, which kind of shook me, because the petitioner in a court case is always the complainer and the primary petitioner of all principles is one who desires a change of place.
I spent two and a half years studying for the Society of African Missions and I continued my studies as I grew older. You probably know who Mortimer Adler was and much of my verification process came through reading a few of his works, but he took your approach, which is honorable, but he eventually held the belief that the intellect is one in all men. More later…