Post by Emperor AAdmin on Dec 8, 2005 18:50:07 GMT -5
Describe Aristotle's God?
Aristotle doesn't mention God by such name but mentions that there must be a so called 'Unmoved Mover' (he talks about 'first cause' or 'primary mover' in Physics, book VIII and in Metaphysics, book XII - more so in the last one then anywhere else) which can be viewed as primary or first cause.
There had to be something that was unaffected by the mutually binding things such as cause and effect. He believed that without such unaffected source that the very cause and effect would even cease to exist. Aristotle didn't appear to view change and motion as something that was clearly understood. While it was clear to him that all things can be viewed as affected by change and motion it was also clear to him that everything needed a cause in order to move and change. Three had to be something that was already in motion that was the reason for all the causes and motions to exist. Without a first cause (or unmoved mover) there would basically be stillness rather then change and motion and in his view such would have to be unchanging and unmoving. This unmoved mover would have to be perfect in order to make universe orderly and functional which is the reason such is associated with God by Aristotle.
Aristotle was of the opinion that the only way there can be a first cause of change is by assuming that such cause is in itself uncaused. Although it can be stated that living things can in effect cause change by them it can also be stated that such change was not caused fully independently from the overall outside environment. The reason such can be stated is that a living thing might have moved something by itself say but the reason for this is that it was guided by its internal thoughts and desires which in turn are subjects of influence of the overall environment. Aristotle was of the opinion that as time (which is eternal) cannot possibly exist without change and hence there cannot be the last cause. He is of the opinion that whatever is changing is changing do to the fact that it is being influenced by something external.
Aristotle's own understandings of cause and effect I would say are the primary reasons he would postulate in the existence of a divine unmoved mover. By following a sequence of causes backswords towards their source one would find a so called first cause (unchanged changer or a self-changing changer like an animal). Given that there is an eternal sequence of causes it is only natural to assume that there an first cause that is eternal and continuous. Primary form of change is movement or motion (time is either equal to motion or one of its derivatives or part of motion) and he viewed a circular movement as the primary form of movement (of course caused by first cause or unmoved mover). The already mentioned circular movement is the one and the same movement in the universe (which in turn affect change on earth) and the reason for its existence would be first cause which contains infinite power and its superior to the material world that we reside in.
In Metaphysics Aristotle gives more attention to the concept of unmoved mover (same as stating first cause or God) to a much greater detail versus what he writes about first cause in Physics. The divine Supreme Being or God here plays a unique role to the rest of the universe or cosmos. God is placed as being beyond the outer sphere of the stars which are moved by him and which in turn moves other spheres and of course earth. All bodies found in cosmos are moved in a circular motion with earth being a sphere that is in the center of other ones ad thus in the center of cosmos.
In Metaphysics, Aristotle gives somewhat of a description of this supreme divine being called first cause or prime mover (or just God). He stated that there is unchanged and eternal substance that is seperated from perceptible things. It is also without magnitude (or infinite magnitude but since there isn’t any such thing it has no magnitude), without parts and indivisible since it initiates motion for an infinite time (and nothing finite has infinite potential). Such substance can not be altered or affected.
Since time and earth are eternal for Aristotle there has to be some kind of eternal and unchanging substance that is part of them and that is the common source for all substance and such substance must also be a prime mover. Such eternal substance contains only eternal actuality (which in turn makes world eternal as well) without any potentiality. Unmoving prime mover is to be seen as the originator for all motion and change that can be found in cosmos.
Aristotle fluctuates in opinion of whether there is one prime mover and whether there are more then one (in which case he appears to mention numbers 47 and 55 as he connects the number of spheres to number of unmoved movers or substances although he appears to leave this subject for as he puts it 'stronger people' or others). The prime mover basically contemplates contemplation. The reason for this is that anything lower can be regarded as being basically undeserving or unworthy of it while anything higher would mean that there might be something more desirable than the existence of the prime mover himself. Also since the prime mover is seen as being good then one can state that the universe in its entirety can be seen as being good as well.
As Aristotle is talking about a prime mover he means that such prime mover is there first and foremost conceptually rather than chronologically. This means that we should not see prime mover as the first there was who started everything in motion. In fact Aristotle believed that time being eternal means that in effect it has no beginning. Thus the only remaining manner in which we can view the prime movers as being 'first' is conceptually. What this means is that one can state that the most in depth understanding of any movement is the prime movers (Gods) who are the ultimate explanation one can look for in explaining any movement.
In conclusion, Aristotle's prime movers are the reason there is movement and themselves are not moved but cause it. He believed that time was eternal and that prime movers were to be viewed conceptually rather than chronologically meaning that one was not to imagine a universe billions of years ago as being created by these prime movers but for one to view these prime movers as the primary cause of movement in universe. I myself must say that out of any religious ideas I have analyzed and read that Aristotle is probably by far closest to my own conception of 'God' (one that rather ignorant or uninterested of everyday earthly reality for his only focus is the big picture, the ultimate big picture of cosmos where earth is barely, as a planet as a whole, on the agenda).