Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Unmoved mover

The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: πρῶτον κινοῦν ἄκινητον) is a foundational concept in Aristotle's metaphysics, denoting an eternal, immaterial, and indivisible substance that initiates all motion and change in the cosmos without itself being subject to motion or alteration.^[1] Introduced primarily in Metaphysics Book Λ (Lambda, or 12), it represents the ultimate first principle of the sensible universe, ensuring the perpetual circular motion of the heavens as the primary form of change.^[2] Aristotle characterizes the unmoved mover as pure actuality (energeia), devoid of any potentiality, and thus free from the composition of matter and form that defines changeable beings.^[1] It operates not through physical contact or efficient causation in the manner of moved movers, but as the final cause—the object of desire and thought—for the celestial intelligences or souls that govern the eternal revolutions of the stars and planets.^[2] In this way, the unmoved mover sustains the ordered, cyclical structure of the universe without participating in its temporal processes, embodying necessity and supreme goodness.^[3] Aristotle equates it with divine intellect (nous), a living being that eternally contemplates itself, stating: "God is a living being, eternal, most good."^[3] This concept resolves the infinite regress problem in Aristotle's physics, where every motion requires a prior mover, culminating in an unchanging source that is both substance and actuality.^[2] It influenced later philosophical and theological traditions, notably in Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, where the unmoved mover forms the basis of the first of the Five Ways to demonstrate God's existence, arguing that all observed motion traces back to an immobile first mover understood as divine.^[4] In Aristotelian cosmology, the unmoved mover thus bridges the realms of physics and metaphysics, providing a rational foundation for the eternity and teleological order of the world.^[3]

Origins in Aristotle's Philosophy

Core Definition

The unmoved mover is a central concept in Aristotle's philosophy, defined in Metaphysics Book Lambda as an eternal, immaterial substance that serves as the ultimate cause of motion in the universe without undergoing any change itself.^[5] Specifically, Aristotle posits that "there must be an eternal unmovable substance" whose essence is pure actuality, lacking any matter or potentiality for change, as anything with potentiality could not persist eternally without actualization.^[5] This substance moves other things by being the object of desire or thought, akin to how a beloved or an intelligible goal inspires action without itself being altered: "The object of desire and the object of thought move in this way; they move without being moved."^[5] As the primary ousia (substance) among beings, it represents the highest form of reality, fully actual and unchanging.^[6] Aristotle introduces the unmoved mover to resolve the problem of eternal motion, distinguishing it sharply from moved movers that require prior causes. In the natural world, every instance of motion or change traces back through a chain of efficient causes, where each mover is itself moved by something else; without an endpoint, this would imply an infinite regress, which Aristotle deems impossible for explaining the continuous, eternal motions observed in the cosmos.^[6] To avoid this regress, there must be a first mover that is unmoved, serving as the origin of all motion: "that which moves and is moved is intermediate, there is something which moves without being moved."^[5] This unmoved source ensures the chain of causation terminates in a self-sufficient principle, grounded in actuality rather than potentiality.^[5] The key attributes of the unmoved mover underscore its role as the foundational principle of being and motion. It is eternal, existing without beginning or end, and thus imperishable, as only fully actual entities can endure indefinitely without the risk of privation.^[6] Unchanging and immaterial, it possesses no magnitude or parts that could introduce divisibility or alteration, making it indivisible and simple in essence.^[5] As pure actuality (energeia), it has no unrealized potentialities, embodying complete perfection and serving as the primary reality that all other substances emulate in their striving toward actuality.^[6]

Role in Metaphysics

In Aristotle's metaphysics, the unmoved mover occupies a central position within "first philosophy," which he defines as the study of being qua being and the investigation of primary causes and principles that apply universally to all entities.^[6] This discipline, distinct from other sciences, examines the fundamental nature of existence, including immutable substances that transcend particular categories like those studied in physics or mathematics. The unmoved mover exemplifies this as a divine, separate substance (choristos), an eternal and purely actual entity that serves as the pinnacle of being, ensuring the coherence and unity of the metaphysical order.^[5]^[6] The unmoved mover integrates into Aristotle's causal framework primarily as the final cause (telos), attracting all things toward itself through desire or thought, thereby initiating motion without undergoing change itself.^[6] While it operates beyond the material and efficient causes associated with physical interactions, it functions as an efficient cause in a non-physical manner by being the ultimate source of actuality that actualizes potentialities across the cosmos.^[7] This causal role underscores its status as the supreme principle, where form and substance converge to explain the essence and purpose of being.^[6] Unlike physics, which concerns itself with changeable beings that possess matter and undergo motion, metaphysics addresses unchanging principles that govern all change without being subject to it.^[6] The unmoved mover embodies this distinction as the eternal, immaterial foundation behind physical phenomena, providing the stable explanatory ground for the observed regularity and eternity of motion in the universe.^[5]

Cosmological Framework

Celestial Spheres

In Aristotle's geocentric cosmology, detailed in his work On the Heavens and building on earlier models by Eudoxus and Callippus, the universe consists of numerous concentric celestial spheres centered on the Earth, each carrying heavenly bodies such as the planets, Sun, Moon, and fixed stars in eternal, uniform circular motion.^[8]^[6] These spheres ensure the observed regularity of celestial phenomena, with the outermost sphere encompassing all others and rotating once per day to account for the daily rising and setting of stars. Each sphere is impelled by its own unmoved mover, acting as a final cause that attracts the sphere toward perfect circular rotation without itself undergoing change.^[8]^[6] The material composition of these spheres differs fundamentally from the sublunary realm below the Moon. Sublunary elements—earth and water, which naturally move downward toward the center, and air and fire, which move upward away from it—follow straight-line paths to their natural places, subject to generation, corruption, and irregular motion. In contrast, the celestial spheres are composed of aether, a divine fifth element whose natural motion is perpetual circular revolution around the Earth's center, immune to decay or deviation and requiring no mechanical push but only an eternal attractive cause.^[7]^[9] This model arises from empirical observations of the heavens: the uniform, anomaly-free, and unending circular paths of planets and stars, persisting without fatigue or interruption over millennia, demand an intelligent, non-material cause beyond physical mechanics to explain their perfection and eternity. Later astronomers, including Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE, refined the mathematical description of these motions in the Almagest by incorporating epicycles and deferents to more precisely account for observed planetary retrogressions and irregularities, while preserving the principle of uniform circular motion.^[6]^[10]

Efficient and Final Causes

In Aristotle's framework of the four causes, the unmoved mover serves as the primary efficient cause of motion, initiating change in the cosmos without itself experiencing any alteration.^[11] This causation occurs through attraction, whereby the unmoved mover draws other entities toward itself, much like a beloved object inspires movement in the lover without the object itself moving.^[11] As detailed in Physics Book VIII, this mechanism ensures eternal motion, particularly the circular movements of celestial bodies, by providing an unchanging source of impetus that terminates any potential infinite series of prior movers.^[11] Complementing its efficient role, the unmoved mover operates as the ultimate final cause, embodying the highest good toward which all natural processes aspire.^[5] It attracts entities not through physical force but by evoking desire or intellectual pursuit, guiding them from potentiality to fuller actuality as the telos, or end, of cosmic order.^[5] This draws the entire universe, including the heavens, into perpetual striving for perfection, with the unmoved mover's own nature as pure thought reinforcing its status as the exemplary object of aspiration.^[5] The interplay between these causal functions is central to Aristotle's resolution of motion's eternity in Physics Book VIII, where motion constitutes the actualization of potentiality sustained indefinitely.^[11] Here, the unmoved mover, existing solely as energeia or pure actuality devoid of unrealized potential, enables this process without itself requiring a prior cause, thus halting regress and grounding all change in an immutable first principle.^[11] Scholarly analysis confirms this dual causality, noting that the mover's efficiency stems from its finality as an object of noetic attraction, unifying the causal chain in a single, self-sufficient entity.^[12]

Ontological Foundations

Substance and Change

In Aristotle's Categories, substance (ousia) is identified as the primary category of being, encompassing individual entities such as particular organisms that exist independently and serve as the subjects to which other predicates—known as accidents—are attributed.^[13] These primary substances, like an individual human or horse, are ontologically basic, capable of undergoing change while maintaining their identity, in contrast to accidents such as color or size, which depend on substances for their existence and cannot exist separately. Secondary substances, including species and genera (e.g., "human" or "animal"), further specify primary substances but remain subordinate to them in primacy.^[13] Aristotle develops this notion in the Metaphysics, particularly Book Z, where substance is elaborated as the essence or "what it is" for a thing, underlying all other categories and constituting the foundational reality of beings.^[6] Here, substances are distinguished as independent entities that do not inhere in others, emphasizing their role as the primary beings (prota ousia) that ground the existence of qualities, quantities, relations, and other non-substantial categories.^[13] This framework establishes substance as the stable subject capable of receiving change, essential for understanding the persistence of entities amid transformation. Central to Aristotle's account of change (kinēsis) is its occurrence within substances, as detailed in Physics Book V, where he delineates four types: substantial change (generation and corruption, involving the coming-to-be or passing-away of a substance), qualitative change (alteration, such as a shift from hot to cold), quantitative change (growth or diminution, affecting size), and local change (motion from place to place).^[14] All forms of kinēsis involve the realization of a potential within a substance, transitioning from what it may become to what it actually is, though this process applies primarily to composite, material substances in the sublunary realm.^[7] In contrast, certain separate substances, such as the heavenly movers discussed in Metaphysics Book Λ, are characterized by their immutability, existing as pure forms devoid of matter and thus incapable of undergoing kinēsis.^[6] These immaterial substances, fully actualized without potentiality for change, differ fundamentally from sublunary composites that combine form and matter and are subject to alteration, growth, or decay.^[15] This unchanging nature of pure forms ensures their eternal stability, enabling them to function as unchanging causes of motion in the cosmos.^[6]

Potentiality and Actuality

In Aristotle's Metaphysics Book Θ (Theta), potentiality (dynamis) and actuality (energeia) form a fundamental distinction that underpins his account of change and being. Potentiality refers to the capacity of a thing to undergo change or to become something else, such as a seed possessing the potential to develop into a mature tree.^[16]^[6] Actuality, by contrast, is the realization or fulfillment of that potential, exemplified by the fully grown tree embodying its complete form.^[17]^[6] This pair is not merely descriptive but explanatory, as Aristotle uses it to analyze processes of becoming, where potentiality represents an incomplete state oriented toward actuality as its end.^[18]^[6] Actuality holds priority over potentiality in three key respects, as outlined in Metaphysics Θ.8. First, in definition or account (logos), potentiality is understood only in relation to actuality, since the capacity for change presupposes the fulfillment it aims toward (1049b5–17).^[19]^[6] Second, in time, actuality precedes potentiality for eternal entities, such as the mature oak existing before the acorn that will produce it, countering the infinite regress in generation (1049b24–1050a10).^[19]^[6] Third, in nature or substance, actuality is more fundamental, as potential beings are dependent and perishable, while pure actuality is complete and self-sufficient (1050b6–19).^[20]^[6] This prioritization resolves paradoxes like Zeno's arguments against motion, by framing change as the progressive actualization of potentiality rather than an impossible infinite division (1050b20–23).^[20]^[6] The unmoved mover exemplifies pure actuality (energeia), possessing no unrealized potentiality and thus requiring no external cause to initiate its being or activity. As described in Metaphysics Λ, this entity is fully actual, eternal, and the source of all motion through its own self-sufficient perfection, attracting other things as their final end without itself changing (1071b20–22; 1072b3).^[21]^[6] In this way, the distinction ensures the unmoved mover's immutability while explaining its causal role in the cosmos.^[22]^[6]

Theological Aspects

Aristotle's Theology

In Aristotle's Metaphysics Book Lambda (Λ), the unmoved mover is characterized as a divine intellect, embodying pure actuality without potentiality. This entity is described as noesis noeseos—thought thinking itself—wherein the intellect contemplates its own essence in an eternal, unchanging act of self-awareness.^[6]^[23] The prime mover's activity consists solely in this self-reflective contemplation of eternal truths, such as the most divine and estimable principles, which constitute the highest form of life and pleasure.^[6]^[23] Aristotle's conception of the unmoved mover reflects an impersonal divinity, devoid of anthropomorphic qualities like will, creation, or providential intervention in the world. Rather than actively willing motion, the mover attracts the celestial bodies as an object of desire, functioning as a final cause that inspires eternal circular movement through its inherent perfection.^[6]^[23] This passive influence underscores the mover's separation from the sensible realm, emphasizing its role as an eternal principle rather than a personal deity engaged in worldly affairs. The prime unmoved mover holds a hierarchical position above other subordinate divinities, each associated with the motion of individual celestial spheres. These lesser movers, akin to mythical gods in traditional accounts, are themselves attracted to the prime mover, ensuring the unified order of the cosmos.^[6]^[23]

First Cause

In Aristotle's Physics Book VIII, the unmoved mover is posited as the eternal first cause necessary to explain the perpetual motion observed in the universe. Aristotle argues that motion must be eternal, without beginning or end, because any initiation of motion would require a prior motion, leading to an impossible infinite regress.^[7] Thus, the cosmos itself is ungenerated and imperishable, sustained by continuous circular motions that prevent dissolution into elemental chaos.^[11] The unmoved mover initiates this eternal chain of motion without itself being moved, serving as the primary principle that ensures the universe's unending activity.^[7] This argument is further developed in Metaphysics Book Lambda (XII), where the unmoved mover is identified as the ultimate arche—the foundational principle not only of motion but of the entire hierarchy of dependent beings. As pure actuality without potentiality, it causes motion eternally by being the object of desire for the primary heaven, thereby unifying and perpetuating the cosmos's order.^[6] Its uniqueness lies in being one both in definition and number, transcending the multiplicity of moved entities and standing as the singular source from which all subsequent causal dependencies flow.^[5] Aristotle's conception explicitly rejects the notion of creation ex nihilo, envisioning the unmoved mover instead as the sustainer of eternal cosmic cycles rather than an originator of temporal beginnings. The universe, in this view, has always existed in motion, with the first cause serving as the eternal object of desire and thought for the celestial spheres, thereby sustaining its imperishable structure.^[24] This framework positions the unmoved mover as a contemplative divine intellect that eternally thinks itself, briefly aligning with theological attributes while emphasizing its causal primacy.^[6]

Plurality and Nature

Number of Movers

In Aristotle's Metaphysics Book Λ (Lambda), chapter 8, he posits the existence of multiple unmoved movers, estimating their number to correspond with the plurality of celestial spheres responsible for observed planetary motions.^[5] Drawing on the astronomical models of Eudoxus and Callippus, Aristotle calculates approximately 47 or 55 such movers in total, accounting for the spheres of the fixed stars, sun, moon, and the five planets, with each mover serving as the final cause for the eternal circular motion of its respective sphere.^[5] This plurality arises from the need to account for the distinct, uniform motions of the seven traditional planets plus the fixed stars, without implying mechanical interaction among the spheres themselves. Among these, Aristotle distinguishes a single prime mover as the supreme, eternal substance that governs the entire cosmos as its ultimate final cause, while the others function as subordinate intellects attracting their specific spheres toward perfection.^[5] The prime mover, described as pure actuality and thought thinking itself, ensures the necessity and unity of the universe's overall order, even as the lesser movers maintain localized celestial regularities. Aristotle does not prescribe a definitive, unchanging number of movers, as his count depends on contemporaneous astronomical observations subject to refinement. In medieval Islamic philosophy, scholars like Averroes (Ibn Rushd) engaged with this multiplicity, allowing for multiple unmoved movers in principle while emphasizing at minimum one primary cause, thereby debating the balance between cosmic unity and plurality in Aristotelian terms.^[25]

Hierarchical Structure

In Aristotle's cosmological framework, the unmoved movers are arranged in a strict hierarchy, with the prime mover at the apex as an eternal, immaterial substance embodying pure thought (noesis) that causes the eternal circular motion of the outermost celestial sphere.^[6] This motion then cascades downward through subordinate movers, each responsible for the uniform rotation of successive inner spheres, ensuring the coordinated harmony of the entire cosmos without any direct physical interaction.^[6] The subordination among these movers operates through a chain of intellectual desire and contemplation, wherein each lower mover eternally contemplates and aspires toward the superior one above it, finding its own perfection in emulating that higher intellect.^[6] As objects of thought and desire, the higher movers attract the lower ones, propagating motion indirectly as final causes that inspire unending aspiration, with the prime mover itself engaged in self-contemplation as the most perfect and divine object.^[6] This hierarchical multiplicity of movers—numbering around 47 to 55 to match the observed celestial motions—achieves unity through their shared divine essence as eternal, thinking substances, though they differ in perfection according to the nobility of their contemplative objects.^[6] The single prime mover thus unifies the entire system, resolving tensions between polytheistic plurality and monotheistic singularity by subordinating all others to its supreme, unchanging primacy.^[6]

Historical Influence

Medieval and Islamic Philosophy

In medieval Islamic philosophy, Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980–1037) profoundly adapted Aristotle's concept of the unmoved mover by integrating it into his doctrine of the Necessary Existent (wajib al-wujud), positing this entity as the uncaused First Principle that bridges Aristotelian metaphysics with Islamic monotheism.^[26] The Necessary Existent is pure existence itself, devoid of any potentiality or composition, serving as the singular essence of God who eternally causes the existence of the cosmos without undergoing change.^[26] This synthesis reconciles the unmoved mover's role in initiating cosmic motion with the Qur'anic emphasis on God's absolute unity and necessity, portraying the divine as the sole necessary being from which all contingent entities emanate through a hierarchical chain of intellects.^[26] Averroes (Ibn Rushd, 1126–1198) further developed this tradition by defending the existence of multiple unmoved movers, each corresponding to the distinct motions of the celestial spheres, while subordinating them to a single, supreme divine cause that unifies all existence.^[25] In his Long Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Averroes argues that these subordinate movers—intellectual forms or souls actualizing spherical motions—operate as final causes, desiring the eternal, unchanging First Cause as their ultimate object.^[25] This hierarchical structure preserves Aristotelian cosmology within an Islamic framework, emphasizing God's transcendence as the primary formal and final cause beyond the plurality of secondary movers.^[25] Averroes' interpretations, transmitted through Latin translations in the 13th century, significantly influenced Latin Averroism, shaping debates on celestial causation and divine unity in medieval European scholasticism.^[25] In Christian medieval thought, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) explicitly equated the unmoved mover with the Christian God, presenting it as the first of his "five ways" to demonstrate divine existence in the Summa Theologica (I, q. 2, a. 3).^[27] Aquinas argues that all motion requires a mover, precluding an infinite regress and necessitating a first unmoved mover that is pure act (actus purus), entirely actual without potentiality, which all understand to be God.^[28] This pure act sustains the chain of causation and motion in creation, aligning the argument with the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo by portraying God not merely as an impersonal principle but as the personal Creator who freely wills the universe into being.^[28] Through this adaptation, Aquinas transforms Aristotle's cosmological insight into a robust theistic proof, emphasizing divine immutability and the dependence of all contingent beings on the necessary divine essence.^[27]

Renaissance to Modern Interpretations

In the Renaissance, Marsilio Ficino revitalized Aristotle's unmoved mover through Neoplatonic synthesis, portraying it as the supreme intellect at the ontological summit, blending Aristotelian final causality with Platonic emanation to affirm a hierarchical cosmos infused with divine eternity compatible with Christian theology.^[29] Ficino's translations and commentaries, such as those on Plato and Plotinus, positioned the mover as an eternal, self-contemplating principle that inspires cosmic order without mechanical intervention.^[30] Similarly, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola incorporated the unmoved mover into his syncretic philosophy, elevating it as a transcendent cause superior to mere motion, drawing on Aristotelian, Kabbalistic, and Christian sources to emphasize human dignity within a divinely ordered universe.^[31] During the Enlightenment, David Hume critiqued the unmoved mover's underlying cosmological argument in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), challenging the necessity of a first cause by questioning why an infinite regress of causes could not suffice and arguing that causal chains explain parts without requiring a singular origin.^[28] Immanuel Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781), further dismissed ontological proofs involving the unmoved mover, treating the idea of a necessary first cause as a regulative principle for guiding reason's systematic unity rather than an object of theoretical knowledge or empirical proof.^[32] In the early 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead reinterpreted the unmoved mover in his process theology, transforming it from a static Aristotelian entity into a dynamic "creative advance" where God lures the universe toward novelty without coercive power, emphasizing relational becoming over unchanging perfection as outlined in Process and Reality (1929).^[33] In contemporary metaphysics, the unmoved mover retains a niche role in debates on causation, particularly as a model for non-temporal efficient-final causality post-Copernican cosmology, which diminished its explanatory power in physical astronomy but preserved its abstract utility.^[34] It also informs discussions of divine simplicity, where the mover's pure actuality underscores God's indivisible essence as the uncaused cause of all contingent being, as defended in modern Thomistic analyses.^[35]

References

[1]
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D12%3Asection%3D1071b
[2]
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D12%3Asection%3D1072a
[3]
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D12%3Asection%3D1072b
[4]
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3
[5]
Metaphysics by Aristotle - The Internet Classics Archive
But the primary essence has not matter; for it is complete reality. So the unmovable first mover is one both in definition and in number; so too, therefore ...Missing: ousia Lambda
[6]
Aristotle's Metaphysics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 8, 2000 · The first major work in the history of philosophy to bear the title “Metaphysics” was the treatise by Aristotle that we have come to know by that name.
[7]
Aristotle's Natural Philosophy
May 26, 2006 · Aristotle's example of such an unnatural mover is the lever, an object heavy by nature, with which loads can be lifted (Physics 8.4, 255a20–23).Motion · The principle of causational... · Movers and unmoved movers · Bibliography
[8]
Introduction to Aristotle's Celestial and Terrestrial Physics
Nov 7, 2012 · Aristotle says there are 55 spheres corresponding to the "planets" (which includes the Sun and the Moon). The sphere of fixed stars (bringing the total to 56) ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[9]
ASTR 340: Origin of the Universe - University of Maryland Astronomy
• Aristotle needed 55 spheres to explain observed motions. • Space is finite, bounded by outer sphere. • But the edge is unreachable: motions become circular ...
[10]
Ptolemy (85 - 165) - Biography - MacTutor History of Mathematics
One of the most influential Greek astronomers and geographers of his time, Ptolemy propounded the geocentric theory in a form that prevailed for 1400 years.<|control11|><|separator|>
[11]
The Internet Classics Archive | Physics by Aristotle
### Summary of Aristotle's Physics Book VIII on the Unmoved Mover
[12]
[PDF] What Does Aristotle's Prime Mover Do?
Dec 28, 1994 · The Prime Mover of Metaphysics Lambda is the source, above all, of eternal motion in the first sphere. It may seem silly to ask 'What ...
[13]
Substance - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 3, 2004 · Aristotle's account in Categories can, with some oversimplification, be expressed as follows. The primary substances are individual objects, and ...
[14]
Physics by Aristotle - The Internet Classics Archive
Part 1. Everything which changes does so in one of three senses. It may change (1) accidentally, as for instance when we say that something musical walks, ...Missing: kinēsis substantial
[15]
Form vs. Matter - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Feb 8, 2016 · Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form. This doctrine has been dubbed “hylomorphism”.
[16]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D9%3Asection%3D1049a
[17]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D9%3Asection%3D1048b
[18]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D9%3Asection%3D1048a
[19]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D9%3Asection%3D1049b
[20]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D9%3Asection%3D1050b
[21]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D12%3Asection%3D1071b
[22]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D12%3Asection%3D1072b
[23]
[PDF] Aristotle, Metaphysics Λ - PhilPapers
For the past two thousand years, this book has been considered the foundation of Aristotle's theology, which is centered on an 'Unmoved Mover' – an expres- sion ...
[24]
Western Concepts of God - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
And for change to be eternal the cause of change-the unmoved mover-must also be eternal. ... creator (ex nihilo) and sustainer of the universe. Despite these ...
[25]
Ibn Rushd [Averroes] - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jun 23, 2021 · Since it is itself unmoved—that is, wholly changeless—its causal agency must likewise be eternal. “A thing lacking the potential for change and ...
[26]
Ibn Sina's Metaphysics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dec 2, 2015 · The prime unmoved mover—which is, in fact, the first caused Intelligence—justifies the movement of the world, but refers in its turn to the ...<|separator|>
[27]
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The existence of God (Prima Pars, Q. 2)
To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and ...Missing: source | Show results with:source
[28]
Cosmological Argument - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jul 13, 2004 · ... unmoved mover, necessary ... Theists broaden the explanatory search to include final causes or intentions appropriate to a personal cause.
[29]
Marsilio Ficino - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jun 9, 2011 · ... Aristotle's prime mover. It stood at the summit of the ontological ... “Iamblichus, Synesius and the Chaldaean Oracles in Marsilio Ficino's De ...
[30]
Marsilio Ficino and the Soul: Doctrinal and Argumentative Remarks ...
Marsilio Ficino and the Soul: Doctrinal and Argumentative Remarks ... unmoved mover) as the origin of the heavenly motion [34] (pp. 38–39). Third ...
[31]
GIOVANNI PICO DELLA MIRANDOLA, JOHANAN ALEMANNO ...
the unmoved mover for two reasons. First, it is superior because it establishes God as the cause of all existence and not simply all motion. Second, Ibn ...
[32]
[PDF] KANT'S CRITICISM OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
and unmoved mover: 'since that which is moved and moves is intermediate ... cause of the first stage with God. In insisting on this point. Kant brings.
[33]
Process Theism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jul 29, 2004 · Process theism is a product of theorizing that takes the categories of becoming, change, and time as foundational for metaphysics.Missing: reinterpretation | Show results with:reinterpretation
[34]
Aristotle: The Unmoved Mover - Bibliography - PhilPapers
Argues that Aristotle regarded the universe, or Totality, as a single substance with form and matter, and that he regarded this substance together with the ...
[35]
[PDF] A Defense of the Metaphysics of Divine Simplicity As ... - Aporia
Mar 8, 2018 · The answer to this question is an unmoved mover who exists without any extrinsic cause, and is either the remote or the immediate cause of both ...