The only thing I’m trying to show is that “if something moves, then it is moved.” The previous example illustrated this in the following way:
Bob ‘moves’ in so far as he accelerates from A to B. But, since that motion will not obtain unless something already in motion actualizes that acceleration’s potency, Bob must be moved in order to move. Therefore, if Bob moves, then he’s moved.
Perplexity:
This is a bit of a side-step from St. Thomas’ definition of “motion,” which happens to be the only definition of motion that does not use an
example of motion to define itself. Because of this it is the only
true definition of it. Besides, you are referring to an exigency that has “self-motion.” Nevertheless, even that which has self-motion must be moved by something else. Bob is thus moved by his muscles and bones, which are moved by electro-chemical processes in them, which are moved by signals from his brain, which are moved by other electro-chemical processes, which are moved by what we call needs, wants and desires, and so on. IOW, Bob is moved by his parts and more.
What we are talking about when we speak of “motion” as St. Thomas defines it, is motion of the whole being. No undivided, part-less
whole can move itself unless it is moved by something else. Even at the quantum level, electrons do not move themselves. Every mobile being that mankind can sense (and many that he cannot sense) is moved by another, that is, in turn, moved by another
ad infinitum - unachievable, unending, without parts or divisions, without time, with out sequence. (Or wait, perhaps there is that First Mover that is unmoved after all!)
But, all along here, we’ve been pretty much talking about
local motion. St. Thomas was able to detect - so, so many years ago - that things were not only moved
accidentally (as opposed to
substantially) by other things, but that there were things that were, for example, brought into existence (moved substantially) by what we know to be a rather large huge
string of efficient movers.
Life is one of those things. Since we can build a replication of what must exist in order for
life to ensue, yet are unable to make it so, we get an idea of the number of presuppositions that must be in place. And, like the boy who moves his feet, that moves his body, that moves his shoulder, that moves his arm, that moves his hand, that moves a stick, that moves a ball, it is a dependent series of motions that all take place simultaneously.
This is not in any way saying that something (else) is “actualizing a potency.” St. Thomas’ definition states that motion is the
act of the potential precisely as potential, which avoids your confusion, yet maintains the definition
qua definition - without circularity. What you are saying is that motion is the “act of the potential precisely as the act of the potential.” You are confusing the nothingness of potential that is the privation of Form with an actual
something, of some sort.
Nothing is
nothing and nothing more; it is not something that merely appears to be nothing, according to some equivocality.
God bless,
jd
. If its true, then the truth itself has insulted you; i just do the commentary.
.
)