>There is something which is eternally moved with an unceasing motion, and that circular motion. This is evident not merely in theory, but in fact. Therefore the "ultimate heaven" must be eternal. Then there is also something which moves it.And since that which is moved while it moves is intermediate, there is something which moves without being moved; something eternal which is both substance and actuality.
>Now it moves in the following manner. The object of desire and the object of thought move without being moved. The primary objects of desire and thought are the same. For it is the apparent good that is the object of appetite, and the real good that is the object of the rational will. Desire is the result of opinion rather than opinion that of desire; it is the act of thinking that is the starting-point.Now thought is moved by the intelligible, and one of the series of contraries is essentially intelligible. In this series substance stands first, and of substance that which is simple and exists actually. But the Good, and that which is in itself desirable, are also in the same series; and that which is first in a class is always best or analogous to the best.
>That the final cause may apply to immovable things is shown by the distinction of its meanings. For the final cause is not only "the good for something," but also "the good which is the end of some action." In the latter sense it applies to immovable things, although in the former it does not; and it causes motion as being an object of love, whereas all other things cause motion because they are themselves in motion.Now if a thing is moved, it can be otherwise than it is. Therefore if the actuality of "the heaven" is primary locomotion, then in so far as "the heaven" is moved, in this respect at least it is possible for it to be otherwise; i.e. in respect of place, even if not of substantiality. But since there is something, X, which moves while being itself unmoved, existing actually, X cannot be otherwise in any respect.For the primary kind of change is locomotion, and of locomotion circular locomotion; and this is the motion which X induces. Thus X is necessarily existent; and qua necessary it is good, and is in this sense a first principle.
(Metaphysics XII 1072a-1072b)
>>17762956 (OP)>people that knew nothing about basic newtonian physics, let alone the universe at large are going to tell you how everything worksPhilosophy was and always will be a scam
>>17762977Yes? Why should I trust someone that can't even describe what acceleration is on the origin of the universe ( that he arrived to by thinking very hard one day)?
>>17762982Clearly you are superior, since you arrive at your beliefs without needing to think at all
>>17762986>Strawman and ad hominemI accept your concession; philoschizos stay losing
>>17762956 (OP)In my experience the prime mover argument is usually made to present more logical or rational evidence for religion but it immediately falls flat because there is no way to verify that said prime mover has interacted with us, cares about us or prescribes a morality or lifestyle that it wants us to follow. Anyone who tries to argue that a prime mover is proof of their religion has zero proof that it supports THEIR religion, at best it can be evidence towards some form of theism and after that we're left completely in the dark.
>>17762971You're conflating physics with metaphysics. While yes Aristotle's goal is to explain the motion of the heavens, even if one were able to provide a mechanistic account of its movement, as Newton did, this still wouldn't satisfy Aristotle's concerns here because he's talking in terms of hierarchies of causation, and he's asking "What grounds the motion of objects?" Here in particular he has the locomotion of the heavens in mind, but for Aristotle motion includes basically any sort of change, and he ultimately grounds change in a prime mover. Newton's theories explain the movement of bodies using efficient causation, but logically if you go up the chain of efficient causes, you just end up infinitely regressing, and this is still a problem for modern physics. In order to ground motion of any sort, you need to have what Aristotle deems a prime mover to be moving objects final cause.
>>17763009>You're conflating physics with metaphysics.Not a thing; you either describe how reality works or you are just playing makebelieg
>>17763009>you just end up infinitely regressing, and this is still a problem for modern physics.Infinite regress isn't a problem; it's only purported as such because of the cultural baggage of greek philosophy that didn't like infinites which was also a consequence of their inhability to handle calculus
>>17763014Empirically, it should be. Nowhere in this world do we observe actual infinities. What grounds do we have for thinking there are actual infinities of causation?
>>17763011That's an interesting metaphysic you have.
>>17763021We don't see uncaused causes either; special pleading won't help you
>>17763011>you either describe how reality works or you are just playing makebeliegInterestingly, "describing how reality works" is metaphysics, not physics. Physics is the study of the behavior of objects in space.
>>17763025>Physics is the study of the behavior of objects in space.That is describing reality; methaphysics has contributed nothing to our understanding of the world bcause it's unfalsifiable
>>17763028>That is describing realityThat's an interesting metaphysic.
>methaphysics has contributed nothing to our understanding of the world It just contributed your post, but I agree that gives us no understanding. You made a claim about the nature of reality, but no claims about the behavior of objects.
>bcause it's unfalsifiableYou are a religious fanatic chanting dogma
>>17763024Any uncaused cause would have to be non-physical, because all things subject to generation and corruption are physical things. It would only be special pleading if we posted an uncaused cause that was physical. But Aristotle doesn't do that. He specifically differentiates between necessary beings and contigent beings, and an uncaused cause would have to be necessary i.e. not subject to generation and corruption.
>>17763024Any uncaused cause would have to be non-physical. It would only be special pleading if we posited an uncaused cause that was physical because all physical things are caused, i.e. contingent and subject to generation and corruption. But Aristotle doesn't do that. He specifically differentiates between necessary beings and contingent beings, and an uncaused cause would have to be necessary i.e. not subject to generation and corruption.
>>17763031>That's an interesting metaphysic.Sappinng a label on something doesn't lidate your delusions
>It just contributed your postIt didn't; when philoschizos are cornered they rrsort to calling verything philosophy or methaphysics, as you are doing
>You made a claim about the nature of reality, but no claims about the behavior of objects.Another philoschizo delusion; there i no distinction btween the two, you need the distinction to support your unfasifiable fantsies
>You are a religious fanatic chanting dogmaAd hominem is another last resort of the exposed philoschizo.
You are stuck with the world view of people that had no understanding of the natural world and relied on vagueries like "form" amd "essence" while the rest of society has moved on.
>>17763042We have never observed uncaused causes; you haven't demonstrate it can't be physical, this is textbook special pleading by saying that your explanation doesn't need evidence because it's special
>>17763051>Special pleading is a logical fallacy where someone applies a standard to others but exempts themselves or a specific situation from that standard without providing adequate justification.I think I provided a pretty adequate justification my friend. This is Aristotle 101. I don't think you actually know how to point out informal fallacies.
>>17763058You provided no evidence and only asserted the opinions of an ancient guy that didn't know what calculus was
>>17763060The sheer stupidity in your comment amazes me. I honestly don't even know how to engage with it because you're clearly not operating on the same level of discussion I am on. I can only say that you're basically in the realm of making a category error right now about Aristotle's metaphysics and, like, modern physics. My friend, you need to take a basic logic 101 class.
>>17763061>ad hominem and incredulityI accept your concession; philoschizos keep taking Ls
>>17763064You have to explain how it's special pleading. Because I gave you justification. Where is the special pleading? Where did Aristotle say everything that exists has a cause? That's not what's being said. You're fundamentally mischaracterizing it. What is being asserted is that everything that has a beginning or end must have a cause i.e. contigent beings. The prime mover is an example of a necessary being. Necessary beings can or cannot have a cause. The uncaused cause is the latter kind of necessary being as acrus purus (pure act), which by definition, could never have a cause, since this would lead to a contradiction. These are the kinds of assumptions at play here when discussing Aristotle. You're showcasing your own stupidity by demonstrating a complete lack of understanding about the subject at hand. You're also engaged in some sort of weird category error by trying to lump in Aristotle's metaphysics with modern science.
>>17763064It's funny too I can tell you don't actually know what any of these informal fallacies are. Throwing around something like ad hominem as if I'm basing an argument off of a premise which attacks your character. Christ, retards like you need to get off the internet. You seem to fucking thing an insult is the same as ad hominem. Your education extends no further than reddit I see.
>>17763047Why are you here, you could use this time to watch Rick and Morty or buy funko pops
Why do these kinds of topics make atheists so angry?
>>17763480It doesn't. We're just laughing at christshits who still take Aristotle seriously.
>B-BUT METAPHYSICSMetaphysics literally isn't real lol. The physical world is all that exists. Philosophers and Christshits are so retarded.
>>17762971>>17763011>>17763047and I'll stop there.
Those that judge and make their aggrandizements base from the physical = vanity.
But even to argue with the vain = vanity
These that sow these judgments = sowing more vanity = desires, delusions, fantasies = such are regurgitated with as much vanity as contrived through their person.
Thus they become the embodiment of regression (lower class) away from the good (higher class)
Nice thread OP
chargin
md5: fc732ab67e4e667069979706a2599ba3
🔍
>>17763630>pic related>wewho? see
>>17764001 running through your physics/metaphysics arguments
>>17762982You don't think Aristotle understood that velocities can be increased? That's silly Anon.
>>17763630>weit's a party now? let's rock. I don't think anyone else is gonna show thought because, you know, schismatica and all that.
https://youtu.be/zvlcno07-fY?si=l0GnnshTEXL_fXh7
It's okay OP, sometimes you gotta steer em in the direction of the thruth
>>17762971see
>>17761656
>>17762977as it happens, aristotle was wrong pretty much about everything.
>>17764075On an intuitive level yes but he couldn't describe it, he also didn't know what momentum was ir how forces worked
>>17764075>You don't think Aristotle understood that velocities can be increased?it may be that he didn't. the way he describes motion seems to implicitly consider motion to be uniform in ways it is not. to him a falling object snaps into falling speed as soon as let go. he thinks an object thrown at an angle will travel first on a straight line, then on an arc of a circle and finally on a downward sloping straight line. that's how wrong he was about everything. no wonder christardation coopted him.
Jesus did it. Aristotle was right.
>>17765115His logic is the foundation for all modern logic.
