Aristotle’s Prime Mover Flashcards
Who is the Prime Mover?
Aristotle’s answer was that the last ring of the stars was caused to move by a being whom he called the Prime Mover (or unmoved mover) or God. The Prime Mover is the cause of the universe - and the cause of all change that occurs in it.
The Prime Mover is the final cause of the universe. The reason for all movement and change, the ultimate purpose, or ‘goal’ of everything in the universe is a desire for God…
All things and people seek God’s perfection - to be the best version of themselves. This is the reason we exist, (this is his virtue ethics theory).
Aristotle’s God was uninvolved with the world after creation. Aristotle’s God is not immanent (knowable). Therefore, petitionary prayer would be redundant because God is not listening nor interested in the world.
The universe has no beginning for Aristotle.
How does God bring about change?
Aristotle’s God is transcendent and does not act in the universe in any way. He did not create the universe, does not sustain it and is not remotely interested in it.
He does not bring about movement and change in the universe in a physical way. He brings about change by attracting (drawing) everything towards his perfection - towards its actuality. God exercises a ‘pull’ on things (think of a cart which moves as it is pulled with force) so that in the example of the planets, God attracts the outer ring of stars to move towards him and this causes the movement.
However, God himself is not affected. He attracts everything towards him in the same way that a cat is attracted to a saucer of milk - the milk is unmoved with no awareness of attracting the cat. God happens to attract by his perfection, but there is no consciousness in the attraction.
What are the characteristics of the prime mover?
- Contingency and necessity
- Potentiality and actuality
- Perfection
- Contemplation
- Eternity
- Immaterial
Explain contingency and necessity
Aristotle notes everything in the universe comes in and goes out of existence; even stars cease to exist after billions of years. Furthermore, everything in the universe is dependent upon other things for its existence; humans are dependent on their parents, on food, water, air, their immune system, the sun and countless other things. This state of being is known as contingency.
God is not contingent. If he were, he would be capable of change (he could die if, say, he relied on sunlight for his existence and the sun fizzled out) therefore, God must exist necessarily - that is to say that God cannot not exist. God does not have an efficient cause - nothing has caused the universe.
Explaining potentiality and actuality
Everything in the universe is in a state of actuality and potentiality. However, something can only have potential if the potential has the possibility of being actualised (a human does not have the potential to fly unaided for example). God has no potential because if he did he would need a third party to move him and so on, to infinity. Therefore, we can say that God is perfect and to be perfect means to be pure actuality. So, God is fully whatever it is to be God.
Explain perfection
For Aristotle, goodness means fulfilling purpose so, if God is pure actuality then God is unchanging (immutable) and contains everything that ought to be there.
It follows that God is perfect (becoming perfect would involve a change!) and being supremely perfect, God would have no interest at all in the universe or awareness of it. Like Plato, Aristotle argues that whatever is perfect could not be in space and time.
Explain contemplation
God cannot perform any kind of physical activity nor experience emotion, as this would bring about change (potential) in God’s inter state. So, God does nothing at all, yet logically is supremely happy because God contemplates (thinks about) himself and his own perfect nature - perfect thought requires a perfect object of thought. Therefore God would only contemplate himself.
Explain eternity
Since God lacks potential he must be eternal (if he cannot change then he cannot cease to be) therefore God has no beginning, no end and he always existed. God and the universe are just there and need no further explanation.
Explain immaterial
Things change in this world because they are material substances. In order to be immutable, the Prime Mover must be purely spiritual - an immaterial substance.
What did Aristotle try to do?
Aristotle tried to explain the world by putting forward the Prime Mover as the perfect, unchanging cause of all challenges in the world - and the final cause (purpose) of all things.
The world has always existed but that goes against science, the Big Bang theory.
Does the Prime Mover help explain the world? YES
- Things in nature do seem to have a telos and be drawn towards a goal or purpose (such as an acorn becoming a tree or food for a squirrel).
- Elements of Aristotle’s Prime Mover are quite logical. Perhaps the idea of an impassive Prime Mover makes more sense than the religious idea of God who is perfect, yet liable to changing emotions.
- Aristotle explains why there is change and perpetual motion, why the planets move in pure actuality and attracts everything to its perfection.
- The impassive nature of the Prime Mover also avoids the problem of why there is so much evil and suffering in the world - there is no question of why the Prime Mover doesn’t prevent it.
Does the Prime Mover help explain the world? NO
- The Prime Mover is proposed as the single reason for motion and change. However, in the world there are four causes of change - there seems no reason to jump from this to a single explanation.
- The Prime Mover cannot be observed using the senses - so Aristotle has moved from empiricism to reason. Therefore his views are subject to the same criticisms as Plato.
- The Big Bang Theory suggests a violent beginning to an ever expanding universe. This casts serious doubt on an eternal world and a God who beings about motion by attracting it.
- Aristotle infers the existence of the Prime Mover from the four causes. However, he is making the assumption that the chain of causes, must end somewhere. As David Hume later argues you cannot infer a casual connection between two things - you can only describe the apparent connection.
- The Prime Mover is almost irrelevant to the universe. For Jews, Christians and Muslims, God created the world with a purpose, cares supremely about his creation and interacts with creating. Aristotle’s god is indifferent, distant and not worthy of worship.
Do the four causes give a true picture of reality?
Material cause: The material cause is obvious. In order to exist and be observed, all things must be made of physical matter. This is a useful basis for our knowledge. However, there is not a material cause of colour or of a concept, such as beauty.
Efficient cause: It explains the process of change from potentiality to actuality. But Aristotle’s critics say that he applies this to such a wide range of changes - chemical, physical, biological, thought - that it is too broad to be significantly informative. Hume argues that we may be able to observe two processes that we call cause and effect - but this does not mean that the effect was a result of the cause - simply that both are observed.
Formal cause: How we recognise what something is -its shape form or characteristics. But how do we know which characteristics are essential to an object to make it what it is?
Final cause: The most important cause for Aristotle which explains purpose - why the world is as it is and why objects are as they are.
Strengths of Aristotle’s empirical approach
- Aristotle’s empirical approach to knowledge is far more relatable and applicable to life than Plato’s because it relies on the senses, observation and experience.
- Aristotle’s method is also scientific in that he experiences the world, observes it, makes a hypothesis of how things work, tests it and revises it.
- Aristotle’s use of final cause is fairly helpful because it allows us to understand more the world around us in how everything has a purpose (telos). It is a strong theory because he claims that goodness is intrinsic to an object - it is good if it fulfils its purpose, for example, a good axe is one that cuts well. The axe fulfils its purpose well so is good. However, what if I cut myself, does that make the axe less good, is it really a good axe? Aristotle’s approach relies on the senses, observation and experience which are reliable so it tells us that this theory is strong because it relies on the senses, and it makes sense that everything has a purpose. It gives us an insight into the world around us and the purpose of it. I know a chair is good if I can sit on it and it is comfortable which shows how good it is and the fulfilment of its purpose.
Similarities and differences between the Form of Good and the Prime Mover
The Prime Moved is the telos of everything while the Form of the Good is the aim of everything.
Neither created the world nor are directly or personally involved with the world.
Aristotle’s Prime Mover is supremely conscious (has awareness) but Plato does not tell us whether the Form of the Good has consciousness.
The Prime Mover attracts all change towards itself because it is the final cause or telos of everything.
Change happens in the imperfect World of Appearances only - because if it is imitating the forms.
The Prime Mover is an ‘orbit’ beyond the planets.
The Form of the Good is in the ‘real world’ - the World of the Forms.
The Prime Mover has no connection with things in the world.
The Form of the Good participates in all the Forms and we recognise it in things in the world of Appearances, for example we recognise goodness in a good person.
