Explain Aristotle’s understanding of the Prime Mover Essay

Explain Aristotles spirit of the uncreated promoter (25 marks) In Aristotles accommodate the Metaphysics, he c exclusivelys the perk up of all movement the prime proposer (P.M). The charge actor to Aristotle is the first of all substances, the necessary first computer addresss of movement which itself is unmoved. It is a universe which is eternal, and in Metaphysics Aristotle also calls this being immortal. However, before he came to enjoy the mankind of the P.M he first started nonicing the invariable substitutes around him, which led him to question the existence and the purpose of the world, universe and the things around us. He examined that e very(prenominal)thing that exists was in a permanent defer of movement or query. By motion Aristotle was linking it to the Greek word motus which refers to shift over. He noticed that everything in the universe is in a land of change, for example, the weather and seasons atomic number 18 always changing. Even the huma n frame is going through the process of change every single day. Everyday the luggage compartment changes, we grow old and age, we lose vibrissa and skin cells. This led Aristotle to observe quaternary things1) The tangible world was constantly in a state of motion and change.2) The planets seemed to be moving eternally.3) Change or motion is always nonplusd by something.4) Objects in the physical world were in a state of actuality and authorisationity.Summing up from these four points Aristotle came to a closing curtain that something essential exist which causes the motion and change to occur without being moved itself and the uncaused change must be eternal. Aristotle reached this refinement by observing that if something can change, it exists in one actual state and has the potential to become an early(a) state, for example, an actual pip-squeak is potentially an adult and a frighten in a field is potentially a piece of roast beef. He realised that if things come to existence they must be caused to exist by something else and if something is open(a) of change that means it is potentially something else. He argued that behind every movement on that point must be a drawing string of events that brought about the movement that we see victorious place, such as A to B to C and so on.However, he tell that this arrange of events must lead endorse to something which moves it that does not move itself. thusly the uncaused cause must be different and separate from the rest of the grasp inorder to start the whole process. So fit in to Aristotle the eternal cause of motion is thePrime doer. The Prime mover causes the movement of other things, not as an efficient cause, precisely as a final cause. In other words, it does not start stumble the movement by giving it some kind of push, but it is the telos of the movement. This is important for Aristotle, because he vista that an effective cause, giving a push, would affect the P.M by the act of force and this could not happen because he approximation that it would change the P.Ms knowledge. Aristotle believed the Prime operator is the final goal of movement that is why it causes things to move by attraction in much the identical way that a saucer of draw attracts a cat. The milk attracts the cat but cannot be tell to be changed in the process.This is why Aristotle believed that the P.M is the source of all motion. To Aristotle the P.M is paragon (for this essay I will be refering to beau ideal as He). Aristotle believed that beau ideal exists necessarily, which means that theology does not depend on allthing else for its existence and is not capable of change because He is pure actuality by temperament and its nature is good. He never changes or has any potential to change and Aristotles book Metaphysics he states that god is a living being, eternal, most goods thence He never begins and never ends, and so is eternal. Aristotle argued that the P.M had to be external meaning it could not be made of any kind of immobilize because matter is potential to change. So since it is saucy, it cannot commit any kind of physical, bodily action, in that locationfore the activity of the P.M must be rigorously spiritual and intellectual. Aristotle also concluded that perfection only speculates about himself so he does not know about our physical world, he does not consecrate a plan for us and he is not affected by us because if He was then it would mean that God changes, because his knowlege would change.He even defines God as thought of thought. Overall Aristotles understanding of the Prime Mover is that He is God, the cause of all motion and in his book the Metaphysics he considers God as a leader and in the order of the universe. How farther is Aristotles concept of the Prime Mover consistent with the biblical concept of God? (10) (AO2) Aristotles concept of the Prime Mover and the biblical (Judeo-Christian) concept of God is in many ways very similar. However, they argon also very different and varied. until now both Aristotles Prime Mover and the biblical God dispense the same foundations- they are both eternal and liable for change in the world. Judeo-Christian God creates the universe from vigor (creatio ex nihilo)and Aristotle argued that nothing existed before the Prime Mover started the chain of causes. Also the Judeo-Christian God is an able designer who crafts a purposeful world (e.g. the purpose of the stars = light).Aristotle also believed that the universe was a purposeful (telelogical) place individual objects have a telos (e.g. chairs = sitting) and the ultimate Final rationality is the Prime Mover. Another similarity between the two is that the Judeo-Christian God is immaterial because creation is an act of will and God creates through his word (Let there be light) or spirit. Aristotles Prime Mover is also seen as immaterial. It is a spiritual energy and not made of the same physical materi als as the material world. Lastly, the Judeo-Christian God is seen in Genesis 1 as a transcendent God. It is the cosmic creator who is upstage from the universe. It is an impersonal being. Aristotls Prime Mover is also transcendent and immaterial. It moves things not throught closeness with them but through attracting them. However, they are in many ways different such as the Judeo-Christian view of God is that He is involved with His creation and is personal. For example, the biblical God answers prayers.Whereas the Prime Mover is the resistance because it is a necessary being but one who does not in any way interact and act in the world. It is a impersonal being. Also the Judeo-Christian God is not completely immaterial. In Genesis 3, God walks in the tend of Eden and in the New Testament, God becomes man in the human turn of Jesus. This belief is known as the incarnation (God becomes flesh). Jesus walks on the earth and experiences pain, temptation and eventually dies. This is very different to the idea of Aristotles Prime Mover who is a spiritual and immaterial being. So overall I think that Aristotles Prime Mover and the biblical God are the same because they share the same characteristics and the reason why is because the Prime Mover idea influenced medieval mentation about the nature of God.