In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ARISTOTLE'S DOCTRINE OF THE UNMOVED MOVER ONE OF THE PERENNIAL problems in Aristotelian studies is the difficulty of reconciling Aristotle's account of the unmoved mover-particularly the number of unmoved movers-presented variously in the Physics and in book lambda of the Metaphysics. Numerous explanations have been offered, most of which either explain too little or too much. The result is that Aristotle is either left enmeshed in hopeless contradiction, or his unmoved mover is something less than was understood by his medieval interpreters . The thesis of this study is that the distinctions made in the Physics, particularly Book VIII, must be applied to Aristotle's discussion of the unmoved mover in Metaphysics lambda. In making this claim I am aware that any successful attempt at exegesis must take into account both the textual problems in the Physics and Metaphysics and recent attempts to interpret the unmoved mover as a principle of intelligibility analogous to scientific " laws." ARISTOTLE's ARGUMENT The argument for the existence of the unmoved mover is found in chapter 1 of Book VIII of the Physics and is based on Aristotle's proofs, for the eternality of motion. Here is how the argument goes: Motion is the fulfillment of the movable qua movable. Motion presupposes the existence of things capable of motion. Furthermore, these movable things must have a beginning, or else they are eternal. To say that movable things had a beginning is to say that there was a motion, or change, before there was anything capable of being moved, which is absurd. Therefore, motion did not have a beginning. The same kind of argument is used to prove the imperish- ARISTOTLE'S DOCTRINE OF THE UNMOVED MOVER 5~3 ability of motion. To posit a motion that destroys motion would involve one in an infinite series of destroyers, for the destructive agent will have to be destroyed, after what it destroys has been destroyed, and then that which had the capacity of destroying it will have to be destroyed afterwards, (so that there will. be a process of change subsequent to the last,) for being destroyed also is a kind of change.1 Eternal motion must be continuous motion, for motion that is merely successive is not eternal. There are three kinds of motion: (1) rectilinear, (9l) rotary, and (3) a combination of the two. Rectilinear motion cannot be continuous, for a straight line has a beginning and an end; a rectilinear motion would involve a turning back at its terminal points.2 Infinite rectilinear motion is impossible because the universe is finite, and an actually infinite body cannot exist.3 Since rectilinear motion cannot be continuous, neither can " mixed " motion be continuous, for the latter is continuous only if both elements are continuous. Rotary motion, however, is not subject to the limits of rectilinear motion, for in circular motion there is no beginning point and no terminal point. Rotary motion, therefore , is primary and continuous.4 From the eternality of motion Aristotle argues for the existence of the unmoved first mover. A good Platonic principle that Aristotle applies here is that " all things that are in motion must be moved by something." 5 This is possible in either of two ways: either the movent moves itself, or else it is moved by another. If the former is true, we have already reached the eternal, self-moving principle. If the latter is true, we likewise arrive at an eternal self-mover, for an infinite regress is impossible. 1 Physics ~52• Iff. Cf. Metaphysics 107Ib 5-10. All quototions from the Physics are from the translation by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gay•e; citations from the Metaphysics are from the translation by W. D. Ross. Both translations (tre included in The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York: Random House, 1941). • Physics 259• 15-20. • Ibid., 206• 1-7. • Ibid., 265• 14ff. • Ibid., 256• ~. 524 DAVID STEWART If then everything that is in motion must be moved by something, and the movent must either itself be moved by something else or not, and in the former case there must be some first movent that is not itself moved by anything else, while...

pdf

Share