God of Aristotle: The Unmoved Mover

Forgive me for not quoting Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics well, this is my essay written on his works.

The lower and higher planes of existence are without separation in the Aristotelian perspective. It is from the beginning-less and endless chain of cause and effect that Aristotle derives all of his theories. The pinnacle of consciousness is described as contemplation of thought itself. This is said by the philosopher to be the state from which the 'Unmoved Mover' (or Aristotle's 'most high god') exists. From the bottom to the top, the 'all' is examined by the philosopher, and the ability to examine such is evidence of man's divine right formed by divinity of thought, from which man may proceed toward perfection. It can be concluded from Aristotle's words that the 'Unmoved Mover' is the first cause, or more appropriately, the un-caused Cause. It it this being, for whom and from whom, the 'all' exists. It can also be seen on a more subtle train of contemplation of Aristotle's works that the 'all' exists by means of God's thought.

The Unmoved Mover has qualities which are best understood through negation, or as many ancient philosophers have said, "by way of 'no'". It can be more clearly understood as emptiness or nothingness, as there truly can be no clear understanding of what is infinite, because what is infinite cannot be grasped by the fetters of thought. Aristotle, having a scientific outlook, uses this method of negation to characterize, yet at the same time disseminate the Unmoved Mover's being as follows: "It has been shown also that this substance cannot have any magnitude, but it is without parts and indivisible (for it produce movement through infinite time, but nothing finite has infinite power; and, while every magnitude is either infinite or finite it cannot for the above reason, have finite magnitude, and it cannot have infinite magnitude for there is no infinite magnitude at all)." Although all of this seems to be very profound and cryptic, it can all be melted down to say that God cannot be a 'thing', and the reason being that god must be infinite and what is infinite transcends all composition. Therefore, god is immaterial, yet omnipresent as substance.

Aristotle's god is best seen without being seen, that is, without composition. To understand this idea in a fuller sense, it is best to consider and explain further why the unmoved mover is without composition. To apply composition to the unmoved mover would mean that the mover is ultimately a 'thing' in the sense that Aristotle describes in physics. He says, "That out of which a thing comes to be and which persists is called a 'cause'". This would mean that the un-caused cause would have a cause, or that the unmoved mover, was moved to be such. The Unmoved mover cannot be such a 'thing' as that would make it 'moved' or acted upon, which contrasts the title given to the being by Aristotle. Furthermore, were the Unmoved Mover to have composition it would have been given form and therefore moved from formlessness to form, which would mean there would be cause attributed to the un-caused cause as all 'things' have their "primary source of the change or coming to rest".

We are not left without a clue into what can be seen at least as the theoretical aspects of the Unmoved Mover. After all, if nothing else, the god would exist at least as an idea. But Aristotle finds it important to add in that "the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality". We can see here that God is the substance of thought actualized, or more simply termed 'life'. This 'life' is then the producer of all things, and we can see that all things are created by means of creative thought being actualized, or given life. As an example, we may find it well to look to the first 'thing' which cam from that creative thought: "For spatial motion is the first of the kinds of change, and motion in a circle the first kind of spatial motion, and this the first mover produces." We can see here that the god of life has actualized its original thought of this 'thing' called motion, and seeking further, we can see that this 'thing' is living because 'it' also is of that actualized thought. In turn, if you wish to examine further, this life is the cause of further life, as what has been cause is now a cause in itself. This can be seen continuing to create causes also, by transference of the life possessed by it for having existence, for that which exists, exists by means of that actualized thought, and shares the nature of it.

For now we may step away from the 'unmoved mover' so that we may consider creation and its pinnacle. The best specimine to examine on this occasion is man, as we have experience as such, and we exist, therefore, we potentially possess the same abilities of actualized thought. It is in our ability to think that we are related to the unmoved mover. Aristotle comes to the conclusion that thought itself is the pinnacle of man by examining the soul of man and of the world. The philosopher concludes such by qualitatively organizing the qualities of soul into a sort of hierarchy as spoken of in excerpts 'from on the Soul', which needs not to be delved into for the time being for the sake of 'magnitude'. Instead, it would be appropriate to understand that thought is declared the pinnacle as thought is life potentially. The philosopher lays subtle claim to this in saying "thinking in itself deals with that which is best in itself, and that which is thinking in the fullest sense, with that which is best in the fullest sense". It can now be understood that thinking on thought itself is the pinnacle in man, for that ability is not only of man, but of God also.

We see it said that "thought thinks on itself because it shares the nature of the object of thought". The words may be understood by some to be simply the contemplation of the psyche. But would God truly devote himself to the action of contemplating such for eternity? This leads me to believe that in this phrase there is something which aims to transcend the language used. The key to understanding such can be understood by the phrase which says, "The actuality of thought is life". Using the key given here we can see the key of creation by the unmoved mover, that life breeds new life, and that reality is becoming, and it is perfect in the sense that it is in the perfect process of becoming so.

We see it said that "thought thinks on itself because it shares the nature of the object of thought". The words may be understood by some to be simply the contemplation of the psyche. But would God truly devote himself to the action of contemplating such for eternity?

Who are we to guess at such things? By what prior experience are you able to answer such a question with any reliability?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


It is not a mere guessing, but it is reason based on and elevated by understanding.

backcase
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

It is not a mere guessing, but it is reason based on and elevated by understanding.

Understanding of what? An incomplete data set as observed and examined through such an imperfect lens as your own mind? I don't see any reason why your answers are better than anyone else's. In fact, all we have are very rough guesstimates based on speculation and extrapolation.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I have not said that I believe this, nor that I do not believe this. This was a study of Aristotle's works of physics and metaphysics, much of which still stands today, not because it cannot be tested, but because it is the rule.

This was revolutionary stuff, why? because no one had thought so scientifically before. He stood up to the myths of his time and held them up to reality.

This is just a discourse of his loftier works with my theory. You could use a primer in Aristotelian physics, then you would understand what I'm talking about.

This was an English essay btw, I had to show that I understand Aristotle's 'Unmoved Mover", not that it is or is not true.

backcase
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I have not said that I believe this, nor that I do not believe this. This was a study of Aristotle's works of physics and metaphysics, much of which still stands today, not because it cannot be tested, but because it is the rule.

This was revolutionary stuff, why? because no one had thought so scientifically before. He stood up to the myths of his time and held them up to reality.

This is just a discourse of his loftier works with my theory. You could use a primer in Aristotelian physics, then you would understand what I'm talking about.

This was an English essay btw, I had to show that I understand Aristotle's 'Unmoved Mover", not that it is or is not true.

Hmm. Well then, I hope you learned something. My personal opinion, for all my admiration and respect for Aristotle, is that he was looking in entirely the wrong direction if he hoped to attain an understanding of the anthropomorphic rendering of divinity.

reply to post by backcase

I have not said that I believe this, nor that I do not believe this. This was a study of Aristotle's works of physics and metaphysics, much of which still stands today, not because it cannot be tested, but because it is the rule. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Aristotelean physics died at the hands of modern philosophy. It is no longer in use.

But he does deserve study, if not just to view and take pleasure in a brilliant mind.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I don't see that as his motive or hope, as you say, but I see it more of trying to limit what is infinite so that it may be understood by simple thought. Do you think that I have understood his concepts well though, and if I may have clarified them? Your opinion means much.

also, I am curious as to what direction you think he should have taken in order to attempt to 'grasp divinity' (said I see it).

backcase
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I don't see that as his motive or hope, as you say, but I see it more of trying to limit what is infinite so that it may be understood by simple thought. Do you think that I have understood his concepts well though, and if I may have clarified them? Your opinion means much.

also, I am curious as to what direction you think he should have taken in order to attempt to 'grasp divinity' (said I see it).

Any lack of clarification derives not from your inability to communicate, but from the obscurity of the material from which this discussion stems. And I feel that while there is merit to this single point of conscious activity, I also feel that there is a narcissistic quality to such a concept which could only lead to one conclusion, and that one conclusion would constitute the entirety of existence within that consciousness. This, I think, would undermine such a "divine" condition, in that if such a conclusion were to derive from the self, it could not hope to reflect anything other than exactly what is already there. Such a state would effectively become the rusted shell of a dried up intellect, which I don't see as being godly by any definition. Imagine a ball spinning in place, utilizing nothing but its own momentum and its own mass. How long would that last? How long should that last? Perhaps it doesn't matter for the ball, but for any mind even slightly interested in anything but itself, I suspect the answer would be a bit more involved.

In a word, I feel "The Unmoved Mover" neglects one of the most essential ingredients for any healthy dynamic which involves two or more angles to be observed: balance.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I see it similarly to you when my teacher explains it, but when I read discourses from Thomas Aquinas I find there to be a relevant truth.

I think that the balance of the unmoved mover is that unmoved mover perpetuates such by love. I think it says such somewhere in metaphysics. But, yes my teacher explains the unmoved mover as being without freedom, without actual rule, and without a sort of life.

I see it in a different way when reading it on my own. I see infinity expressing itself in every instant, as each effect is also a cause giving life.

All in all, it's really not my bag, but I got a good grade on it so what evs

reply to post by backcase

I think that the balance of the unmoved mover is that unmoved mover perpetuates such by love. I think it says such somewhere in metaphysics. But, yes my teacher explains the unmoved mover as being without freedom, without actual rule, and without a sort of life.

I'd be interested in knowing how you made the connection between the unmoved mover and love.

I see it in a different way when reading it on my own. I see infinity expressing itself in every instant, as each effect is also a cause giving life.

Infinity is not one. And one finite digit is exactly what I would foresee the "unmoved mover" reaching. One final constant. One destination to end all destinations. That's contrary to the principle of infinity.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


In book 12 of Aristotle's metaphysics it speaks of a 'final cause'. it says "That a final cause may exist among unchangeable entities is shown by the distinction of its meanings. For the final cause is (a) some being for whose good an action is done, and (b) something at which the action aims; and of these the latter exists among unchangeable entities though the former does not. The final cause, then, produces motion as being loved, but all other things move by being moved." -- www.rbjones.com...

also, I would not be one to consult on the theory of infinity, but I view it as a sort of underlying reality of all things, as it is transcendent and extends infinity and inwardly in all directions filling the infinite all with itself. The concept cannot really be made into a concept I suppose, but maybe that can give you a hint to my understanding of such.

reply to post by backcase

The final cause, then, produces motion as being loved, but all other things move by being moved.

No wonder Aristotlean physics is considered obsolete. I've never heard of 'love' being a law of physics. Love didn't even exist until we popped up to invent a name for it. Love was just a raw emotion, like all the other emotions we've given names to. Raw sensory data. A chemical reaction. Much like the stars we talked about earlier.

also, I would not be one to consult on the theory of infinity, but I view it as a sort of underlying reality of all things, as it is transcendent and extends infinity and inwardly in all directions filling the infinite all with itself. The concept cannot really be made into a concept I suppose, but maybe that can give you a hint to my understanding of such.

No, I don't think I understand yet. But I'm still willing to try.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well since love can is an abstract concept it can mean a different thing to any single person. I find there is something peculiar about ascribing it to divinity making it a sort of universal force or cause, being in itself the cause of itself.

This would also credit the idea that God is Charity, which is a thought you and I have examined once before, as it would have no other reason for remaining in existence other than the love of being existent in the way which it is: perpetuating the universe.

Understand that this love would be of a different definition than the common one, but more of an agape paradigm.

Have you ever considered that there could be a noticeable presence with which the universe acts? Something of which would make for a sense of ever becoming yet being always in the instantaneous gestation stage. Sort of like the beginning being both the beginning and end and perpetuation of existence extends from that continuum.

Could that make sense or is this rambling and raving to you?

reply to post by backcase

Well since love can is an abstract concept it can mean a different thing to any single person. I find there is something peculiar about ascribing it to divinity making it a sort of universal force or cause, being in itself the cause of itself.

Perception.

This would also credit the idea that God is Charity, which is a thought you and I have examined once before, as it would have no other reason for remaining in existence other than the love of being existent in the way which it is: perpetuating the universe.

Seems I had this conversation with someone else. How did I put it? Ah, yes:

Things don't operate as they do because we think they should or because they decided it would be fun. Either you follow the rules of physics or you do not. Consciousness is not synonymous with physical function. You don't have to be awake or cognizant for your particles to do exactly what their existence in this universe mandates. If they exist, then this will be their function and behavior according to that specification as determined by such and such a set of environmental factors.

Understand that this love would be of a different definition than the common one, but more of an agape paradigm.

So you're saying that the universe was spurred into motion by, and is still perpetuated by, unconditional love? Doesn't sound like any science I've ever heard.

Have you ever considered that there could be a noticeable presence with which the universe acts? Something of which would make for a sense of ever becoming yet being always in the instantaneous gestation stage. Sort of like the beginning being both the beginning and end and perpetuation of existence extends from that continuum.

None of that made any sense. Poetry and science are difficult friends.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


ah! well I tried. i suppose that my mind is better apt to understanding things outside of common comprehension. either way thanks for reading and entertaining, at least, what i have been trying to convey. i do not have a very large vocabulary, nor library of scientific knowledge. i have only ideas which i can infer and attempt to articulate

peace to you

backcase
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

ah! well I tried. i suppose that my mind is better apt to understanding things outside of common comprehension. either way thanks for reading and entertaining, at least, what i have been trying to convey. i do not have a very large vocabulary, nor library of scientific knowledge. i have only ideas which i can infer and attempt to articulate

peace to you

Thanks for trying. Like I said, from what I understand, it is not you that I have trouble grasping, but your reflection of a material that's obscure even in its purest form. While emotion may reflect the baser mechanisms of psychology, and thus the universe in a fractal sense, I have difficulty comprehending how emotion constitutes an actual law of physics, and how that might have been introduced at such an early stage when it took 4 billion years for the word "love" to become an actual thing. But I guess that, given enough time, all answers will become evident. And if they don't become evident, we can hope to at least know why.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I have always thought that the intangible has to come before the tangible you know? The idea has to come before the invention. I reason thus to conclude that the reason for existence is love. For if anything exists it exists by God's will I have seen that this will is fashioned from love

reply to post by backcase

I have always thought that the intangible has to come before the tangible you know? The idea has to come before the invention. I reason thus to conclude that the reason for existence is love. For if anything exists it exists by God's will I have seen that this will is fashioned from love

Love is grand and all, but there's a difference between emotions and the laws of physics. Hell, the fundamental forces of the universe existed long before there were ever any emotions, because they existed long before there was ever any life. But I can't stop you from indulging in your fantasies, so I guess this is my cue to gracefully bow out before I start laughing uproariously at your idea of "science".

reply to post by AfterInfinity


"The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God." -Euclid