Aristotle's Argument for an “Unmoved Mover” and his Description of the Divine Nature (Essay Sample)

Josephine Sarange Theory 16/04/2015   Aristotle's argument for an “unmoved mover” and his description of the divine nature             Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as the first effect that puts the cosmos into motion. He argues that movement exists in the universe and moving things were set into motion by something else; if moving things were set into motion by something else then there exists an infinite cause which therefore means that there existed something that caused the first movement, (27). It will be unacceptable for Aristotle if one argues that all things are in reality at rest and may certainly not have had a preliminary point. This is simply because Aristotle would want to know why they were at rest and what exactly caused them to rest since being at rest means the end which then brings up the question of what precisely made the things to move before resting. All these simply lead Aristotle to the thought of motion and time bringing concluding that both motion and time are eternal.             Aristotle thinks that locomotion is the primary source of motion. According to him a constant motion is primary because of its simplicity and completeness, (76).  He states that only spherical motion can be simple and complete or continual and rectilinear motion can never be continual but composite simply because a motion along a set line must definitely come to an end and to be continual must make a reverse. A motion that moves along a set line and does not make a reverse is incomplete. He adds that only a spherical motion is eternal and the other sorts of motion can never be eternal because they have initial, central and ending points unlike the spherical motion which is endless. He then argues that a continual motion is passed on to the heavenly planet by the first mover, which then sends out motion to other things. It’s crystal clear that something can only move because of a given cause from something else, but what exactly caused the start of motion in the universe? Since motion is a time based activity, things could not have been moving always without a given cause. This requires us to look for the exact cause of the motion’s beginning in the universe. This is the point where Aristotle thinks that there should have been an eternal cause of the motion in the world. According to him, motion being an essential element in the world leads us to consider the presence of something else at the exterior of the world which is not restricted by motion and time, (98). We are simply looking for the infinite uncaused causer of all. Aristotle however tries to describe the “unmoved mover” as a substance which according to him, exists by need and is eternal. Anything eternal is never formed or destroyed but has and will at all times exist.  It’s to our knowledge that the existence of a substance is independent and exists by virtue of itself. On the contrary, Aristotle illustrates things as having unintentional existence whose being depends on something else, (Harold, 87). Take a look at the following entity, a human being called John, according to Aristotle, this entity is a substance and portrays the state of it being human. John is naturally human and the fact that john is called “john”, and is an African philosopher and is angry or hungry today is unintentional. So Aristotle understands that the unmoved mover and human being are a kind of substance. Aristotle clearly gives three different categories of substance, the sensible and perishable substances, the immovable substances also known as non-sensible and eternal substances and the sensible and eternal substances. Human beings are most familiar with the sensible and perishable substances like the animals and plants, which can be changed in different ways, depending on something itself or the place or the quality or the quantity of the thing. Change depending on something itself happens in a way that the thing changes to something else; Andrea describes this change as a mere generation and destruction, (105). Change depending on place involves movement whereby something moves from one place to the next. Change depending on quantity involves increase or decrease of something and finally change depending on quality involves alteration of something that may be caused by an unnecessary feature. Aristotle thinks that during the change process there has to be a third element, that which changes from one thing to another, he refers to it as “The matter”. The substances that are sensible and eternal are mainly the heavenly bodies which actually move but eternally.  The immovable substances are related to religious studies while the sensible substances are related to physics, (David, 79). Unlike other substances like human beings the unmoved mover has a very unique feature of never moving or changing. When Aristotle talks of movement, he doesn’t exactly refer to the physical movement alone but the state of generally being affected by an external element, (Lindsay, 101). For example, look at john again. He has a human quality plus the accidental qualities like being “angry”. Let’s say as the day passes his girlfriend surprises him with a gift and makes him very happy. John still has the quality of human but in addition has the accidental quality of “happiness”. In his case john was “moved” by his girlfriend by effecting an unintentional change on him.   According to Aristotle, things are always changing in the universe and so as to give this assumption a meaning we will have to assume the presence of time. In the context of change there should be a previous to and subsequent to i.e., a before and an after; like my above example, John was at the beginning angry but later was happy. Change provides an implication of sequential events and the sequential events involve time, (Julius, 63). At this point we may ask ourselves, where exactly do change and time come from? But according to Aristotle an eternal substance in the universe which keeps things in motion eternally must be in existence. He continues by saying that nothing really moves randomly in the absence of something else which causes its movement. Therefore one could theoretically outline all the motions in the universe to some fascinating force to help know all the movements in the cosmos, (115). Aristotle expands his argument on the issue of the “unmoved mover” by introducing the object of desire and the object of thought. According to him these objects move without being moved. Let’s look at a great example on the object of desire; a very handsome man relaxing in a restaurant having tea, he concentrates on taking his tea as he reads his newspaper, now imagine an exceptionally attractive lady in the same restaurant takes notice of him, having been attracted to him she starts a conversation. In this case the man is the “unmovable mover” being the object of desire for the lady. The man simply stimulates the lady to come to him hence the unmoved mover because he in no way engaged himself in any of the activities to bring the lady to him or star the conversation. Unlike the handsome man, the motion in the universe is not accidental but caused by the nature on the “unmoved mover”. The physical attractiveness is not an inbuilt human being quality but exists accidentally just like in the case of an earlier example of John. This then implies that the unmoved mover has an essential quality and not accidental w...