[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 340x405, 654869489.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18539124 No.18539124 [Reply] [Original]

>Aristotle argued against the idea of a first cause, often confused with the idea of a "prime mover" or "unmoved mover" (πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον or primus motor) in his Physics and Metaphysics.[7] Aristotle argued in favor of the idea of several unmoved movers, one powering each celestial sphere, which he believed lived beyond the sphere of the fixed stars, and explained why motion in the universe (which he believed was eternal) had continued for an infinite period of time.

This is off wikipedia's page on Cosmological argument. This is blatantly wrong, isn't it?

Also Aristotle thread.

>> No.18539153

Yes it is, it's ridiculously wrong. In coming to something that is unmoved by anything else it must necessarily be one, because the one is simple and non-composite and there would be no distinction between two non-composite parts

>> No.18539193

>>18539153
Wasnt that something later argued by Christian theologians?

>> No.18539195

>>18539124
Probably written by another Amerilard who is still trying to stick it to his childhood pastor for daring to tell him that there may be more to life than pleasure.

>> No.18539205

Well, it's what he argues in Metaphysics 12.8. Are you saying that Aristotle was wrong about what he thought? If so, I have so ask why you would expect Aristotle to be a Muslim in 350~ishBC when the Jews hadn't even invented monotheism until around 200BC, and Muhammad wouldn't be born for another 920 years.

>> No.18539229

>>18539205
But in Physics he does posit that if there is more than one unmoved mover is irrelevant when positing only one makes his argument perfectly valid. As for the idea of first cause, isn't it also related to the prime mover?

>> No.18539298

>>18539229
A "First Cause" is just the first cause in a chain of causality. The Prime Movers can't interact with each other, so by definition a First Cause only comes from one thing, but that only means that a causal chain goes back to one thing, it doesn't mean that you can't have multiple sources of causal chains.

Aristotle argues that the world is uncreated, unending, and eternal. Everything is made up of a combination of five elements: Fire, water, wood, wind, and Quintessence. Everything in the sub-lunar realm is made up of the first four, whereas the fifth is found in the super-lunar realm. There are beings, 47-55 of them, that are the Gods. These beings are the Gods of Hesiod and Homer with a hyper-rationality applied to them. Apollo is real, and does things, but he doesn't chase nymphs. Each of these beings is pure rationality engaged in endless self-contemplation. They can never, ever, do anything else but self-contemplate; if they stopped, they'd stop existing. Due to how Aristotle constructs how things occur, there are 47-55 entities, the Planets (from Planetos Asterai, "the wandering stars"). These entities are made out of Quintessence.

Quintessence is a special element; things made out of it move in circles eternally and are spherical (and circles and spheres are the perfect shapes) and absolutely smooth. Each Planet is embedded in a Celestial Sphere. Each Planet, out of Love for a God (1:1 God:Planet), moves eternally. A chain of Love then occurs, which each thing in the chain Loving each thing above it. This is how causality enters the sub-lunar world.

>> No.18539360

>>18539298
Whether or not the Celestial Sphere itself is made out of Quintessence, or is just a sort of figment we construct to make sense of things, is never really answered by Aristotle; later thinkers held that each Sphere was, and was translucent, and as such you can't pass through them. The discovery of comets moving through where the Spheres should be in the 1600s ended that theory.

Aristotle is doing something special here, however: he's attempting to explain how things that are empirically known to occur occur. A Greek KNEW the Celestial Spheres existed. How else do you explain how anything happens? Pythagoras said so. Aristotle, in a sense, CAN'T deny the existence of the Celestial Spheres anymore than you or I could deny the existence of atoms. Aristotle's entire project is justifying and rationalizing the beliefs of the Greeks, and that includes polytheism, the Celestial Spheres, the optimality of a plurality of city-states, elemental atomism, and a bunch of other stuff. The Celestial Spheres are crucial for Aristotle's entire project.

A problem that Aristotle is aware of however, arises: what made the Planets, and the Celestial Spheres, and anything? Nothing, they're eternal. Aristotle uses the createdness (and implicit destruction) of the universe as examples of the ludicrousness that comes about from the non-eternality of the Gods, Planets, Universe, etc. These things HAVE to be eternal, or else the entire system falls apart. You'd have to have something outside of time and space create time and space, but then it'd be in its own time and space (which is absurd according to Aristotle's system) or it would have to be outside of time and space (another absurdity that Aristotle rejects).

The only reason to argue against this, as Aquinas says, is if you have some source outside of rationality that has Revealed something special to you. Aquinas (who people on /lit/ believe is the same person as Aristotle and John Philoponus) believed that the Bible was axiomatically correct, and Reason must be bent to it. Aristotle doesn't believe this, because polytheism is obviously true. The Greeks believe in it, which means it must be. Lacking the Bible (or, historically, the Quran, as early Christians just chucked Aristotle out entirely because of his polytheism; it was Muslims who brought "Abrahamic Aristotelianism" into vogue), there's zero reason to postulate monotheism.

>> No.18539385

>>18539193
No, look at chapter 8 of the Metaphysics. He argues there's is only one unmoved mover.

>> No.18539406

>>18539385
No, look at chapter 12.8 of Metaphysics. He argues that there are 47-55 Prime Movers.*

Fixed that for you. It's worth noting that Aristotle actually SAYS that there's forty-nine to fifty-five Prime Movers, but then does some math that actually calculates to 47-55, and says that the precise number is irrelevant because it's multiple and he's not an astronomer.

>> No.18539413

>>18539298
>The Prime Movers can't interact with each other
but Aristotle in Physics posits only one prime mover and this prime mover causes movement.

>> No.18539433

>>18539413
No, Aristotle posits 47-55 Prime Movers. In 12.7 he explains the class, explains why they can't interact, and then explains how many there are in 12.8. There's zero reason to explain why they can't interact if there's more than one of them.

>> No.18539436

>>18539406
You misread it. He opens the chapter considering whether there is one substance or many and he ends it concluding there is one. "Evidently, there is but one heaven."

>> No.18539442

>>18539205
>have so ask why you would expect Aristotle to be a Muslim in 350~ishBC
He's called Shayk Aristotle for a reason

>> No.18539459

>>18539436
Correct. And this is necessary for his entire cosmology of multiple discrete bodies: one heaven. There's only one universe with multiple bodies in it. To argue for one Prime Mover would, to Aristotle, amount to arguing that only one thing exists (which some Aristotelian Sufis do indeed do: It's Allah)

Later Jewish thinkers would take your train of thought to its logical conclusion (one God per universe) and conclude a multiverse full of Gods, each sticking to its own universe, however.

>> No.18539663

>>18539459
>Later Jewish thinkers would take your train of thought to its logical conclusion (one God per universe) and conclude a multiverse full of Gods, each sticking to its own universe, however.
Do you have any particular sources on this? I've never heard of a multiverse/multi-god theory in jewish mysticism but that interests me.

>> No.18539779

>>18539663
I can't cite a particular text or big thinker, but certain Jewish conceptions of Yahweh and him as a pantheistic entity require that IF there are multiple universes, then because Yahweh "is" the universe, then each Yahweh must have a universe (and a Chosen People). That's a big IF, and while some Jews argue that certain passages talking about endless worlds in the Torah/Talmud indicate a multiverse, others argue that either there's not multiple universes or that even if there were that Yahweh is still in charge of them all (and the Jewish People are Chosen in all of them). I believe Chabad Lubavitch theology explicitly rejects multiverses, however.

If you google it you can find Rabbis agreeing with every possible position but never really elaborating. But then, even the whacky Buddhist texts like the Flower Garland Sutra that absolutely affirm a multiverse don't really take it too far (you're in THIS universe dealing with life HERE, other universes are irrelevant).

The point I'm making, however, is that if we take anon's argument (one universe = one God) to its logical conclusion then we're required to admit a (bizarre) form of polytheism if we accept the possibility of a multiverse (Aristotle rejects a multiverse but endorses and indeed in a sense requires polytheism, so it's really a moot point). To reject the possibility (not necessarily the reality, I certainly haven't been outside of this universe) however is to reject the one-universe-one-God argument by rejecting the bond between the two.

>> No.18539856

>>18539433
I think in his metaphysics he makes a distinction between first mover and unmoved mover. First can only be one and unmoved movers can be more than one (he says something around 50).

>> No.18539923

>>18539205
>why you would expect Aristotle to be a Muslim in 350~ishBC
He was Muslim

>> No.18539930
File: 807 KB, 680x680, 83c897f90bf4ad9e3cc85eeb3d9a0d6a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18539930

>>18539124
Everybody ITT btfo'd by the big bang theory.

>> No.18539975

Aristotle did indeed think there were multiple first movers. This is why I think people who say Aquinas or the scholastics just copied Aristotle are retarded. There are huge differences between the greeks, neoplatonists and the christians when we consider how Exodus theology influenced them.

Read Etienne Gilson

>> No.18539983

>>18539975
This is confusing, see >>18539856. It would be nonsensical to argue for more than one first mover, because, if more than one that is first, which one is first, or will there be any first one?

>> No.18540082
File: 125 KB, 380x662, b72da37d23e33ff0fcd86844ab80ba8e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18540082

>>18539983
Well it obviously wasn't nonsensical for Aristotle. Pic related shows Gilson talking about it.

>> No.18540093

>>18540082
To continue, perhaps their is a distinction between the first mover and the other unmoved movers, but it would seem Aristotle is not dismissive of the possibility that there other movers which share the same attributes of this first mover.

>> No.18540138

>>18540082
>>18540093
>Thus although the first unmoved mover stands alone in being first, he is not alone in being an unmoved mover.
Also, I have only read his Physics, in there, like Gilsons quotes, Aristotle only posits one substance. Do you know why there is a relation to astronomical bodies and unmoved movers? The unmoved mover should be immaterial, unchanging, while this is not a property of astronomical bodies.

>> No.18540248

>>18540093
>why there is a relation to astronomical bodies and unmoved movers
as anon up thread said the bodies are made of the fifth substance which by definition moves in circles because it loves a god. its just how shit works, dude. aristotle was a constitutional pluralist. his whole thing was about creating substances that do specific things and have specific properties so that he could justify a political, religious, and cultural pluralism.

>> No.18540275

>>18540138
I think the celestial bodies that he talks about are supposed to represent the unmoved movers. They do their best to emulate them basically. That's why he says that the unmoved movers are a final cause for the celestial planets and all other things meaning that they are directed toward the end of the first mover(s).

>> No.18540668

>>18540275
Ah yes, this is maybe the only way to understand the pertinence of celestial bodies here. I think in this case too Aristotle comes close to Plato.

>> No.18541335

>>18539930
That's just a retarded rehashing of the prime mover though.

>> No.18541353

Ive read all the Greeks except Aristotle because hes the npc normie of Greek thought.

>> No.18543312

>>18539779
>don't agree with Abrahamism because it denies à multiverse
>don't agree with Buddhism for other reasons
Where do I go from there?

>> No.18543336

>>18539930
bazinga

>> No.18543339

>>18539124
>>Aristotle argued against the idea of a first cause
Only in the sense of the Universe having a beginning in time, which Christians never argued for either (at least not the Aristotelian ones). The prime mover is not the thing which "causes" the Universe at the "beginning of time", it underpins the universe at every single moment and causes everything to behave the way it does as pure potency. This is what Aristotle and Aquinas argued was "one" and "unmoved", sometimes called the first cause (distinct from the cosmological argument).

>> No.18543526

>>18539153
>it must necessarily be one because the one is simple and non-composite

>> No.18543535

>>18539195
The unmoved mover whether one or many will forever be unrelated to YHWH.

>> No.18543540

>>18539930
The big bag is a physical event that has very little to say about Creation.
Though, I will say, look up who came up with the theory. You may be surprised.

>> No.18543554

>>18543535
Lucky that we Christian's do not worship Yahweh.
Any particular reason why you spelled his name that way?

>> No.18544222

>>18543554
>Lucky that we Christian's do not worship Yahweh.
I think this would be news to most Christians.
>Any particular reason why you spelled his name that way?
Biblical reasons.

>> No.18544309

>>18539124
Greek philosophy is extremely naive. You have to be a dimwit to take it seriously nowdays.

>> No.18544332

>>18544309
Imagine unironically thinking philosophy has progressed since the Greeks

>> No.18544348

>>18544332
Imagine unironically thinking

>> No.18544359

>>18539124
His methodologies are better than his theories and he would have accepted a different hypothesis if it was backed with evidence.

>> No.18544364

>>18544348
Indeed, one can see right through the derivative trash that is "modern philosophy."

>> No.18544367

>>18544348
Some kind of insincere insincerity?

>> No.18544436

>>18539923

Aristotle was literally macedonian, which is near Greece.

>> No.18544447

>>18539930
I think the Big Bang would be problematic for cosmologies of this sort only if you interpreted it as the first moment in time (which is pretty a controversial and absolutely groundless statement).
>>18539975
Aquinas could just retcon additional Prime Movers to angels, and claim that God was a pure act of being, rather than a literal spatiotemporal object capable of moving matter

>> No.18544457

>>18544222
>I think this would be news to most Christians
Nope, just ingorants like you.

>> No.18544541

>>18544348
The Aristotle of our time

>> No.18544818

>>18544332
>Who is Kant?
>Who is Nietzsche?

They're on par with the Greeks. Whether your contrarian ass thinks otherwise is irrelevant.

>> No.18544824
File: 21 KB, 500x590, wojaktfwtoointelligent.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18544824

>>18539124
AYO

what if there's two unmoved movers, and they pushed off each other to be the first cause

>> No.18544831

>>18544818
It's not just me, most of the genuinely insightful thinkers of the world are on my side. Kant and Nietzsche are only idolized by facile academics and mentally ill vagabonds respectively.

>> No.18544840

>>18544818
>They're on par with the Greeks.
l m a o

dont make me laugh. kant is alright, and kneechee is a joke played on children. dude literally signs himself as the antichrist. megacringe brainlet.

>> No.18544873

>>18539779
Nah the basi legani explicitly speaks of infinite worlds and explains how they would exist outside of the tree of life as their own lights and trees, however in deeper Kabbalistic models like this the boundless universes are constructed akin to a diamond in which each facet is another universe/tree of life, there being infinite facets to the jewel but the center and essential nature of the diamond being the same throughout, thus no matter the partzufim, the alien light, or what have you, the essential nature of the light as Atzmus is identical. Now whether if this essence pervading them is just atzmus or also ain is a different topic.

>> No.18545081

>>18544824
Wouldn't that imply that the two un-moved movers aren't eternal and thus would have to have a mover themsevles?

>> No.18545100

>>18545081
ever heard of double effect? one can cause two things in one action.

>> No.18545134

>>18544457
Your anti-semitism copes are keeping you from admitting that you worship the God of the Bible, also known as YHWH, also known as the God of Israel.

>> No.18545149

>>18544457
YHWH is literally in the old testament, what are you on.

>> No.18545151
File: 85 KB, 300x240, pepegreeks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18545151

>>18545134
also known as the highest good, or, the form of the good

good morning rabbi

>> No.18545190

>>18545149
KJV corrected the faulty Hebrew 'original'.

>> No.18545235

>people itt still can’t understand the many different symbolic senses in which the tetragrammaton can be taken and ignoring the main sense that is metaphysical expressed in I AM WHO I AM.

>> No.18545267

What exactly moves my thoughts when I exercise my will to pick up a ball and bounce it of the wall?

>> No.18545274

>>18545235
BUT WHO AM I?

>> No.18545288

>>18545190
>literally had the anglicanised name jehovah (ie YHWH) four times in it
haha okay

>> No.18545301

>>18545274
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx30_2yGMsw

>> No.18545305

>>18545151
Sorry sweetie but the form of the good doesn't choose a people, sent prophets, flood the world, institute circumcision, nor does it get nailed to a cross. Plato would have mocked Christianity to no ends.

>> No.18545497

>>18545305
>Plato
you mean Socrates? : ^ )

Plato was not above using myth in a scurrilous and deceitful way.

>> No.18545721

>>18539205
Jews were monotheist around 750BC lmao

>> No.18545731

>>18539779
Problem is I Am refere to being itself, and there is nothing besides being.

>> No.18546024

>>18545134
most people don't know that Yahweh just means "That which is"

>> No.18546058

>>18539663
I've never heard this either, but it seems like a logical development. Prior to Judaism being monotheistic Jews recognized their God as a superior to other neighboring Gods while still recognizing their existence.

>> No.18547441

bump

>> No.18547453

>>18543312
>Where do I go from there?
Shankaracharya (pbuh)

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

>> No.18547496

>>18544873
Brainlet here, does this mean there are infinite worlds in abrahamic/christian cosmology?

>> No.18548668
File: 112 KB, 640x320, 1620406078765.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18548668

we are

>> No.18548764

>>18547496
Depends on the type of abrahamicism and the specific models held by which mystics/philosophers, but in the case I was speaking of? Yes.

>> No.18550197

bump

>> No.18550328

>>18548764
You were talking about kabbalah but what about christianity specifically? The view that there are infinite worlds would be considered heterodox in catholicism and orthodoxy right

>> No.18551599

>>18539124
What does that idea do for me?