Aristotle's PM - A&P Flashcards
INTRO - define
PM - Aristotle’s concept of the ultimate cause of movement and change within the Universe
INTRO - define both sides of the debate
based on empirical observation / Prime mover is an inductive leap of logic as has no empirical evidence of existence
Section 1: theme
The four causes
Section 1: AO1
THE FOUR CAUSES
Empiricist, a posteriori
An explanation for the state of change In the world from things moving from potentiality to actuality
This is due to its directional change via the four causes explained via an analogy of a statue: Material cause (bronze) ; formal cause (shape) ; efficient cause (the Statue maker) ; final cause ( used to pray to the Gods). This final cause is called the telos and what everything is working towards, which causes change and movement
Section 1: AO2 FOR
THE FOUR CAUSES
Based on observation – makes it believable and there is an element of common sense as most objects conform to this idea
The Four causes focus on purpose and give us a way of determining whether something is good or not. We intuitively know if an object is good or not if it does not have a purpose
Section 1: AO2 AGAINST
THE FOUR CAUSES
Claim that everything has a purpose is subjective as whether something has a purpose depends upon your point of view. A Religious Studies textbook may not have been intended to balance a wonky table but if it does the job who is to say that it couldn’t have other purposes
Twentieth-century philosophers, known as existentialists, claim that human beings have no purpose. As atheists, they argue that our existence is a matter of chance and that there is no purpose until we freely choose to give ourselves a purpose. However, this purpose is entirely a matter of our choice
Section 2: theme
The Prime mover
Section 2: AO1
THE PRIME MOVER
The PM is an impassive immutable being that causes changes in the world. The PM is unaware of the world as it is pure actuality and so can only think of pure unchanging things. So logically it can only think of itself and thought. The PM being pure perfection draws all things towards it as all things desire perfection just like a cat being drawn to a saucer of milk. . The milk is unmoved, but attracts the cat. In a sense, the Prime Mover is the final cause of all things.
Section 2: AO2 FOR
THE PRIME MOVER
It is difficult to believe in a God that is perfect if that being is liable to changing emotions. An impassive prime mover seems logical
A passive PM avoids the traditional problem of evil. There is no issue about evil and suffering in the world as the PM does not change and so cannot prevent evil
Section 2: AO2 AGAINST
THE PRIME MOVER
Tredennick: hypocritical criticised Plato for not having any empirical grounding when PM is theoretical and has no evidence
If the PM is pure thought but is on some way responsible for everything then where did all the matter come from
The idea of God who is not involved is unsatisfactory for religious believers. The PM is not worthy of worship not would there be any point to prayer. Although Aristotle sees the Prime Mover as being ultimately good, it is a static and logical goodness rather than the goodness one might experience in a relationship
Section 3: theme
How could the Prime mover have moved everything else into existence
Section 3: AO1
ACTUALITY
If the PM is perfect and pure actuality then how could it have caused everything else into existence as this would infer a change in its actuality.
Section 3: AO2 FOR
PLATO
Beyonce effect – can impact her fans but can influence them to change and likewise to this the PM also inspires change elsewhere rather than actually changing.
To treat the PM as causing everything else than treats it like the efficient cause – is a mistake as it is not the efficient cause it is the final cause its different
Section 3: AO2 AGAINST
PLATO
Aristotle goes from the premise that all things have movement to an unmoving PM (no empirical evidence – and contradicts initial premise)
The fallacy of composition just because everything in the universe has an efficient cause does not mean that the universe itself does
