However, to continue infinitely we would have problems to explain the movement, something should be the basis, which means that the latter is not in turn moved or affected, hence the idea of an unmoved mover. If we think about the causes of the movement of the entities, to explain it we have to see what led to their movement, and we probably find a reason that generated it that in turn has another cause that generates the movement of the latter and so on. Aristotle seems to speak for example of the motionless cause or the first immobile motor as an end, that is, that moves entities in terms of a goal, as something that attracts something, that generates or induces its movement but that in itself does not change. In my work “Propositions” (see in book publications’ menu) I develop similar concepts in a certain way, but with marked specific differences. Aristotle argues that in order to explain the movement of things in a solid way, we need a first unmoved mover, that is, a cause of the movement of another entity that in turn does not move, is fixed, that is, remains unchanged and nothing is the cause of it (see reference in the link above). The idea of movement in Aristotle seems to go beyond the displacement of an object, it also includes other processes such as the evolution of potentiality to actuality, the modifications of things, the processes of development, growth, change, etc. Here there is a link to a recommended article that deals with the concept in relation to God in more detail: link. The prime mover or unmoved mover is an argument or concept within the thought of Aristotle that makes reference to metaphysical questions or questions about the nature of the reality in relation to movement (in the Aristotelian conception of it) that is usually used like an argument in favor of the existence of God. Image obtained from Wikipedia, see in: link
0 kommentar(er)
