Was Aristotle’s mistake that he just used to many words to describe/define God?

Personally I would have gone with just the Eternal…but then again Aristotle was just being Aristotle he had to add unchanging to it and now it’s given me a conundrum to solve…

And is if that isn’t enough he adds more: “unmoved mover”

What a mess

I would like to discuss Aristotle with you but, honestly, I'm reading about this and none of it is making sense. Wikipedia is not ideal for learning things...at all, really.

Hopefully someone with links will come along…I don’t know where to start with him.

I don’t know where to start with him. — invicta

I agree that tackling Aristotle is daunting (and my knowledge of him is fragmentary). The standard encyclopedia sources are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). A translator by the name of Joe Sachs authored some of those articles and is also translator of a well-regarded edition of Aristotle's Metaphysics. His IEP article is here https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-metaphysics/ and the homepage of his translation here https://www.greenlion.com/books/Metaphysics.html . Another well-regarded edition is his Nichomachean Ethics.

I want to know more on the subject of what Aristotle meant by this. The eternal unchanging unmoved mover. — invicta

As in illustration of an unmoved mover, consider how a cat is attracted to a saucer of milk. The milk does not move but it does move the cat.

Hopefully someone with links will come along…I don’t know where to start with him. — invicta

An excellent resource is "Ancient Philosophy: Aristotle and His Successors" by Susan Sauvé Meyer.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/aristotle

In particular, see these links (videos and transcripts):
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/aristotle/the-first-mover-of-the-cosmos-RO3zk
https://www.coursera.org/lecture/aristotle/the-unmoved-mover-qpDGr

As in illustration of an unmoved mover, consider how a cat is attracted to a saucer of milk. The milk does not move but it does move the cat. — Andrew M

Yup the problem is the quantity of the milk reduces because of the thirsty feline.

Hence the problem with eternal unchanging nature of such a being.

Perhaps the feline would pee on the bowl after so even though the quantity remains unchanging it’s now contaminated by the filthy feline.

@Wayfarer thanks for the link Andrew as well, shall peruse it at a more convenient time.

Elvis is in the building

I actually got it now, well at least I think I do anyway. Btw please note I still haven’t read any of the links above I shall outline my own speculations taken from Aristotle’s description:

eternal unchanging unmoved mover — invicta

Like Andrew gave the analogy above to the cat being drawn to the unchanging saucer of milk the issue with entropy becomes readily apparent.

And not just entropy but scale, in this case the quantity of milk being removed from the saucer.

In order to defend the whole description “eternal unchanging unmoved mover” certain modifications to the above analogy need to take place.

And I can’t see any therefore Aristotle was wrong.

Unless I postulate the following thought experiment:

Suppose then the bowl of milk contains a little warning label in cat language that says “Poison” which can only be seen as the cat moves closer to the saucer.

The cat of course is a curios animal but even a curious animal knows full well to stay away from poison…

The eternal unchanging unmoved mover. — invicta

Read Ethics, part I "Of God". (Re: Spinoza's substance)

The other analogy being that of moths to a light

Moths being moved by the unmoved mover (the lightbulb) do not affect its eternal unchanging nature of the light

The other analogy being that of moths to a lightbulb. — invicta

This analogy doesn't work because (1) someone has to make "the lightbulb", (2) connect it to a power source and then (3) switch it on – thus, it's neither "eternal nor unchanging". Also, it's "the moth's" genetic hardwiring for photosensitive attraction that moves it toward the switched on "lightbulb" and not "the lightbulb" itself which moves "the moth".

@180 ProofLet me respond by modifying the moths Nature to instead of being drawn to light they are drawn to darkness which needs no power source.

I don't think that Spinoza captures exactly what Aristotle said but agree those writings are closer than pretty much anything else before recent attempts to read him.

The analogy still doesn't work. In "eternal and unchanging" – primordial – "darkness" there is no energy available to "the moth" to "be moved" or, in fact, to move at all. :roll:

I think Spinoza shows the implications of Aristotle's thought and corrects – reforrmulates – the classical concept of "substance" (as it comes down from Aristotle to . . Anselm, Ibn Rushd, Maimonides, Aquinas & Descartes).

What warrants your assumption that the moth is in the same energy less environment as the darkness. Aristotle separates the two.

Your analogies fail to express what Aristotle thought.

The eternal unchanging unmoved mover exists in isolation to what it affects. The moth etc.

Did Aristotle not conceptualise it in that way ?

Thus, your analogues do not work insofar as "the moth" is not "isolated" from either the "lightbulb" or "darkness" because it is affected by either of them. Aristotle (& Descartes) makes this mistake too (which Spinoza corrects).

onemmmeither — 180 Proof

What does that mean ?

tyoo (corrected)

tyoo — 180 Proof

What?

↪invicta tyoo (corrected) — 180 Proof

A typo ? So what did you mean to spell then chubby fingers :lol:

I write posts fast on my cell while doing other things or getting around. Reread the post. I removed the typo.

Reread the post. I removed the typo. — 180 Proof

Can I get a please?

I write posts fast in my cell while doing other things or getting around. Reread — 180 Proof

Must be a pretty big cell then

I hope it’s not some semantic or linguistic trick being used here in the definition of the word change. — invicta

Something unchanging always remains what it is as it is.

Some quick comments:

There is little or no agreement as to what Aristotle means by 'God'. This much is clear. Whatever it might be it is not the creator of the universe. It does not interfere in the affairs of men. It does not hear our prayers. In brief, in order to understand what he is talking about, start by forgetting whatever assumptions, beliefs, and concepts you might have about God.

It is worth noting that Aristotle does not start with gods or prime movers (plural), but does use the term theology and does talk about things divine. There is a great deal of road work that must be done first.

I like this thread but have nothing substantive to add. The term 'the unmoved mover' itself
speaks to me relating to being for itself and agency of willing, that is the determinate thing
transcendent in pure action in its aim. That is willing moving to its ends.

Thank you for your comment Alex. The issue presented itself to me in another thread so it piqued my interest hence the reason for this thread.

I am somewhat satisfied with the conclusion derived above to that of the moth to light analogy whilst ignoring the technical aspect of putting it into practice as 180 Proof pointed out.

I do however believe the subsequent modified analogy of moths to darkness addressed it somewhat but not fully in my mind.

There is of course the matter of intent, does God in this case wish to be acknowledged by the nature of the separation of these two vastly different substances.

What I mean is this, the eternal that has existed can part and separate itself then the issue as I see it that the offspring of the eternal would retain the formers attributes such as unchanging, which obviously presents a problem the way Aristotle presented it.

A good example of eternal unmoved movement:

In Plato's Republic Glaucon says astronomy compels the soul to see what's above. Socrates responds that as it is taken up now it causes the soul to look downward. (429a)

The cause in these examples is not physical. More importantly, for both Plato and Aristotle it is not a one way street. Both the mover and what is moved are interconnected. Together they form a whole. It is not simply the stars that cause the movement up or down. It is Glaucon who moves his head and Socrates who moves from what is visible to what is intelligible. This is an indication of why in Aristotle's Physics he talks about the soul.

A most valid point, albeit with the niggling notion of defining the word unchanging (including motion).

Aristotle seems to imply that the eternal is still then, that the concept of motion is illusory or non-existent defying expectations and everyday observation.

If by motionless he means just that then it is separate from nature altogether, although nature can appear unchanging at times, change, decay, thermodynamics and entropy are everyday things.