Monday, March 04, 2019
If God opposes homosexuality, do we owe gay people an explanation as to why?
Here is a question which I have struggled with a lot of late. Suppose we conclude, based on Scripture, that God considers homosexual conduct to be wrong. And suppose a person struggling with homosexual desires asks the question of why God condemns such conduct. That seems like a reasonable question to me, but do we owe them an answer? What would it be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
406 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 406 Newer› Newest»Ugh, the spaces at the beginning of the lines were lost... is it clear nonetheless?
2nd try with periods in place of spaces...
Take this simple visualization:
A.>.B.>.C
.A.>.B.>.C (A moved, thus B and C moved)
Let's say A is pushing B that's pushing C. It looks like they're all moving simultaneously, but that's an approximation. Reality is more like this:
A.>.B.>.C
.A>.B.>.C (A moved)
.A.>B.>.C (force transmited to B)
.A.>.B>.C (B moved)
.A.>.B.>C (force transmited to C)
.A.>.B.>.C (C moved)
And if they "look like" there's simultaneous movement, it's because A moved multiple times, let's say twice.
A.>.B.>.C
.A>.B.>.C (A moved)
.A.>B.>.C (force transmited to B)
..A>.B>.C (A moved again, and B moved, simultaneously!)
..A.>B.>C (force transmited to B; force transmited to C)
..A.>.B>.C (B moved again, C moved, simultaneously)
..A.>.B.>C (force transmited to C)
..A.>.B.>.C (C moved again)
So in this example, we do have simultaneous motions, but they are different chains of causation. A ia still moving first, alone, and C is still moving last, alone. That's what Physics tells us about our reality.
Hugo,
That's a fair request, but...
- We don't agree to that basic premise of moving-hand-moving-stick-moving-rock being an example of essentially ordered series.
- We don't agree essentially ordered series exist physically. It only "looks like" they exist to the naked eye, but modern Physics tells a different story. Aquinas couldn't know that btw, for obvious reasons.
I think I've made it clear that I don't care what you call a moving hand, moving a stick moving a stone as long as we agree that it's physically possible. What happened before the hand starting moving the stick moving the stone or after this motion ceased is irrelvant to the argument of the First Way.
The goal of the First Way in this respect is to establish that no material thing can move itself. If it's moving, then something else must be moving it. Since we see things moving, there must be something moving them that is not itself moving. The part that talks about an infinite number of moving movers all lacking the capacity to move themselves is just to show that that notion is absurd.
I'm not sure if you think all motion is some sort of herky-jerky stop and go action, but that wouldn't matter to the argument since none of those A's, B's or C's can move themselves.
FYI, there are plenty of physics classes with diagrams and tests that could be used to illustrate this case. THIS for instance
From a common-sense physics point of view I think the First Way is a convincing argument. It invites us to imagine finding a box of moving billiard balls in space, say. We would probably conclude that some external agency had shaken the box or somehow struck one ball and its motion had been transmitted to the others by collisions. We would be much less likely to conclude that the motion had been going on for ever or that it had occurred spontaneously. If we want to reject FW I think we have to argue that the box of billiard balls is not a good analogy for the origin of macroscopic objects and their motion. For we don't think these objects were created and then set in motion. But we do have reason to think that they are manifestations of some underlying reality in which perpetual and spontaneous motion occurs and on which the FW gets no purchase.
David,
Aristotle held that motion in the universe was perpetual. But he concluded that even perpetual motion requires an unmoved mover. The First Way focuses on a different aspect of motion, that of a single thing moving and why it moves.
David,
By the way, I thought I saw you mention that you were retired. If you don't mind me asking, what field were you in. Were you a teacher?
bmiller said...
What if A stops moving after 1 minute, instead?
If the hand stops moving before the stick starts moving,
Sorry, I mistyped that. I will try again.
Let's say you have a stick that is 1 light-second long. The hand pushes the stick for 0.1 seconds. The compression wave travels along the stick for about 1.2 seconds, and then the stick moves the stone 1.2 seconds after the hand has finished its movement. Is this still an essentially ordered series?
Until they are all actually moving they obviously are not moving simultaneously.
What is they have all moved, but never all moved simultaneously?
As a reminder, one of Aquinas's arguments is that nothing can move (that is, supply the motive power for) itself. I am demonstrating a counter-example to this idea with the foot-pushing-skater-bringing-along-foot example.
Expanded:
Say I am on skates. I use one foot to push the rest of the body. The foot supplies the motive power,one part moving another part. The body supplies no motive power. However, once the foot stops pushing, it gets carried along with the rest of the body. Since the motive power for the rest of the body came from the foot, the foot has supplied the motive power for it's own movement. It has moved itself.
So, we agree the foot is responsible for it's own motion, and therefore something can indeed move itself? Or, do you disagree, but just decided to skip that part?
No to both questions.
What supplied the motive power for the foot, then?
In my quote that you posted I stated this:
This is pretty much the same as the scenario that Legion mentioned when the stick stopped moving the stone, just on wheels if I get your scenario correctly. The skater will continue to move at the last velocity achieved before the motive force ceased, but friction will slow him down.
How does this tell us the source of the motive power that moves the foot?
I mentioned that this looked similar to Legion's post of March 14, 2019 4:48 PM. In both cases, once the motive force is removed, inertia, friction and gravity determine it's motion. How is your scenario different from when the motive force of the stick is removed from the rock?
It differs because the rock does not drag the hand along with it.
bmiller said...
"I don't care what you call a moving hand, moving a stick moving a stone as long as we agree that it's physically possible"
But that was not the original point of mentioning the hand-stick-stone, right? You previously said:
"Pushing a stone with a stick is a stock example of an essentially ordered series."
But now, apparently, that is really needed, as we can just jump to:
" The goal of the First Way in this respect is to establish that no material thing can move itself. If it's moving, then something else must be moving it. Since we see things moving, there must be something moving them that is not itself moving. The part that talks about an infinite number of moving movers all lacking the capacity to move themselves is just to show that that notion is absurd. "
But why? That's when the analogies start again...
"I'm not sure if you think all motion is some sort of herky-jerky stop and go action, but that wouldn't matter to the argument since none of those A's, B's or C's can move themselves."
- It's not what I think; that's how reality works... there is not instantaneous causation as far as we collectively know.
- Nothing can move themselves, sure, but you conclude that there must be 1 thing that can and does move other things. That's the conclusion of the argument. Why? Otherwise nothing moves. Why? Because things that move are moved by others.
"FYI, there are plenty of physics classes with diagrams and tests that could be used to illustrate this case. THIS for instance"
This page explains exactly what I have been saying! It's an approximation to consider system as point systems...
One Brow,
What is they have all moved, but never all moved simultaneously?
I think you mean 'what if' rather that 'what is'.
As I've mentioned before and I'll mention it again, I'm indifferent to what you want to call the mobile of one thing moving another thing since that is irrelevant to the argument of the First Way. What matters to the argument of the First Way is that none of these things can move themselves.
One Brow,
Say I am on skates. I use one foot to push the rest of the body. The foot supplies the motive power,one part moving another part. The body supplies no motive power. However, once the foot stops pushing, it gets carried along with the rest of the body. Since the motive power for the rest of the body came from the foot, the foot has supplied the motive power for it's own movement. It has moved itself.
So, we agree the foot is responsible for it's own motion, and therefore something can indeed move itself? Or, do you disagree, but just decided to skip that part?
Then I said "No", and you asked:
What supplied the motive power for the foot, then?
The motive power for the foot was supplied by muscles of the person.
This would be a good time to re-read the linked section of the Summa Contra Gentiles. Thank you for at least taking a look at it to come up with relevant questions.
It differs because the rock does not drag the hand along with it.
OK, fair enough. In both cases however once the motive force is removed, it is friction, gravity and inertia that determine the further motion.
Hugo,
I offered the Summa Contra Gentiles presentation of the First Way and the entire section it is contained in as the starting point of the discussion of the First Way. You will not find the moving hand moving stick moving stone given as an example there, nor a definition of that type of movement. That is why arguing about that definition is irrelevant to the First Way under discussion. I'm sorry now that responded to questions about the definition and I will not do so again as part of this discussion.
- It's not what I think; that's how reality works... there is not instantaneous causation as far as we collectively know.
Which is exactly what I've said here:
Please reread my post of March 14, 2019 7:17 PM. That's not what I'm claiming at all. Change of postion of materially existing beings always involve a change in time. This is a well known position of Aquinas and Aristotle.
- Nothing can move themselves, sure,
Good. That is the major point of the argument and I'm pleased to see we agree.
I'll continue on a separate post and soak in the harmony of the moment that both agree is true.
Sorry about grammatical errors, but I don't think they change the intended meaning.
Hello BM. Not at all. I used to do software for data acquisition systems in physics research. I now do some private tutoring in maths and physics mostly at what we Brits call 'A-level', ie, the university entry qualification.
Hi David,
High energy physics? I remember your interest in quantum wave theory. I also thought I detected an aptitude for teaching in your posts.
Hugo,
Here is the argument again:
Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover.
Since we agree that nothing moves itself yet things are moving (Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense.) it follows that something moves the moving things yet is not itself moving.
That's the gist of the argument.
Yep, nothing new... the problem is that we can't tell whether there's some infinite chain looking back or whether there's something not moving. Neither have been demonstrated because, as you agreed "Nothing can move themselves, sure
Good. That is the major point of the argument and I'm pleased to see we agree."
But, we also cannot demonstrate the existence of an infinite chain either. Infinity is purely abstract; it's some term we made up to describe such never ending chains.
And that's where we usually go back in circle, as you'll want to claim, like Martin was doing, that there must be something not moving at the beginning of the chain, like power lines that must have a power station at the beginning. But the power station doesn't move itself either; it's just an analogy. Nothing moves itself in a strict sense. Well, except...
Correction just in case... 'whether there's something not moving but that can move other things, or something moving itself basically'.
Hugo,
We've agreed that material objects cannot move themselves, yet we see them moving.
It doesn't matter how many material objects there are that cannot move themselves they would still need something to move them. That is what the First Way is arguing.
I've mentioned previously that there is a limited amount of space in the universe, so even if you filled it up with objects that can't move themselves (a finite number), they still could not move themselves. So there's no need to even be concerned about infinite anything.
THIS is all we are talking about. There is nothing infinite about it.
Your discussion with Martin was about something different.
The number of objects in the example is finite, but none of them can move themselves.
bmiller said...
" We've agreed that material objects cannot move themselves, yet we see them moving. It doesn't matter how many material objects there are that cannot move themselves they would still need something to move them."
And what are they being moved by?
100% of the time, the answer is 'another material objects', which cannot move themselves. Even forces/fields fall under that definition given what we know about modern Physics.
"That is what the First Way is arguing."
Not really... it an unjustified exception right away. As you said/quoted: We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover.
But that specific part is not a valid argument; it creates a false dichotomy. Even if we grant that it's impossible to have an infinite chain of moving material objects*, the only logical follow-up is that there is no infinite chain. It doesn't tell us anything about what the actual chain is as we only have moving material objects to inspect. It has not been established that the only 2 options are 'infinite' VS 'prime unmoved mover'.
Look at it this way; would you be convince by the following argument:
- Every moving material object is moved by another moving material object.
- Every material object we observe moves.
- Therefore, there is no unmoved mover.
- Therefore, the chain of movers is infinite.
I would argue that this is not valid, for exactly the same reason that this isn't valid either:
- Every moving material object is moved by another moving material object.
- Every material object we observe moves.
- We cannot observe an infinite chain of movers.
- Therefore, there is an unmoved mover.
Neither are correct; both introduce concepts that have not been proven to exist in reality nor proven to be mutually exclusive. Again, it's not obvious at all that there is 'either' an infinite chain or an unmoved mover.
* (and it's not obvious to me that we can make that case; the concept of infinity is just a tool. It's not because we cannot 'proceed' to infinity that something akin to infinity doesn't exist. We can't tell! The universe may just be way more bizarre than that.)
Plus, the point of the First Way is to prove that this unmoved mover exist to start with, so it's, frankly, laughable that the argument would be about something else, i.e. that the chain of moving material object is not infinite. It's not even attempting to explain why an unmoved mover can exist, directly; it's just arguing that some other option is false and pretends that there is no other option...
That's why analogies are always use... they are the only way to try to explain why this unmoved mover could exist. Again, that power station at the beginning of a power line, right? The idea is that we see the power lines, we know there is electricity travelling in them, and we therefore conclude that the electricity must come from somewhere. That simple observation is extrapolated to a ridiculous level by stating that everything we see in the universe moves, therefore there must be something moving all of these things, as if understanding what's behind the observable universe was necessarily that simple to summarize...
bmiller said...
As I've mentioned before and I'll mention it again, I'm indifferent to what you want to call the mobile of one thing moving another thing since that is irrelevant to the argument of the First Way. What matters to the argument of the First Way is that none of these things can move themselves.
So, you feel the concept of essentially ordered series are irrelevant. OK.
The motive power for the foot was supplied by muscles of the person.
Since the muscles are also part of the body that moved, and the muscles moved the entire body, the muscles supplied the moved themselves.
OK, fair enough. In both cases however once the motive force is removed, it is friction, gravity and inertia that determine the further motion.
Agreed. I was discussing what supplied the initial motive power, and whether that object moved itself, not any subsequent motion.
Hugo,
And what are they being moved by?
They cannot be moved by something moving that much is clear.
It has not been established that the only 2 options are 'infinite' VS 'prime unmoved mover'.
Right. Infinite is not an option. Maybe there could be another explanation. What is it?
I'm not really sure why you introduced 2 invalid arguments into the conversation so I won't respond to those.
Plus, the point of the First Way is to prove that this unmoved mover exist to start with, so it's, frankly, laughable that the argument would be about something else, i.e. that the chain of moving material object is not infinite. It's not even attempting to explain why an unmoved mover can exist, directly; it's just arguing that some other option is false and pretends that there is no other option...
It is about establishing there must be an unmoved mover. It is addressing a possible objection by introducing a theoretical possibility and demonstrating that it is an absurd objection. The linked section of the Summa Contra Gentiles addresses other possible objections. You apparently still haven't read it or you would know this.
That's why analogies are always use
There are no analogies used in this presentation of the First Way. It argues for the existence of an unmoved mover in the same manner as scientists argue for the existence of dark matter, by supplying a possible non-contradictory solution to a physical problem.
One Brow,
Since the muscles are also part of the body that moved, and the muscles moved the entire body, the muscles supplied the moved themselves.
Part of the body moved and part didn't. You made a correct observation here (except for using the word 'primarily'):
When I walk, I use my feet to push against the ground. While the foot is pushing against the ground, it is not in motion, so it is at rest. Thus, that which is primarily moved by itself can have one part at rest and another in motion.
In your example of the skater, once the skater stops pushing and starts rolling all parts of the skater are moving and so the skater is moving 'primarily'. When the skater is pushing against the ground, part of the body is at rest and part is moving just like you pointed out previously.
So, you feel the concept of essentially ordered series are irrelevant. OK.
I feel that arguing about the definition of an 'essentially ordered series' is irrelevant to the First Way from the Summa Contra Gentiles.
It is irrelevant in the same way as when the subject is 'objects that objects the sun' turns into an argument about how many planets there are. (For the record there are only 8).
bmiller, I have not re-read the section of the Summa you pointed to, no, because I am not sure what else you want to use from it to make your point. You already included this last week:
"The Summa Contra Gentiles version is probably a better version since it was written for people without training in natural philosophy. The link also has explantions for reasoning associated for each of the premises. You can also follow it uplink to find an index to see how all of the other attributes of God, discoverable by reason, are arrived at.
Here is that version:
[3] Of these ways the first is as follows. Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense. Therefore, it is moved by something else that moves it. This mover is itself either moved or not moved. If it is not, we have reached our conclusion—namely, that we must posit some unmoved mover. This we call God. If it is moved, it is moved by another mover. We must, consequently, either proceed to infinity, or we must arrive at some unmoved mover. Now, it is not possible to proceed to infinity. Hence, we must posit some prime unmoved mover."
The same flaw I just pointed to yesterday is right there, in bold. What else would we get from the full text by reading it again? Which part do you think correct this flaw?
Regarding you last comment; I asked 'and what are they being moved by?', you replied:
"They cannot be moved by something moving that much is clear."
We see moving things being moved by other moving things. You are arguing for an exception: some thing that isn't moving and moving other things.
"Right. Infinite is not an option. Maybe there could be another explanation. What is it?"
No no, infinity is definitely an option; it's an option that is unprovable though, that's the problem.
Yes, maybe there are other explanations. I don't think anybody knows the full range of possible options. That's why I pointed to just 1 book as an example, The Grand Design, in which a modern understanding of physics is put in simpler terms for people without training in advanced Physics.
"It is about establishing there must be an unmoved mover."
Exactly, but this attempt to establish an unmoved mover is done by:
" introducing a theoretical possibility and demonstrating that it is an absurd objection."
i.e. by introducing some other idea.
"There are no analogies used in this presentation of the First Way"
There is literally one in the quote you posted... The Sun is moving.
" It argues for the existence of an unmoved mover in the same manner as scientists argue for the existence of dark matter, by supplying a possible non-contradictory solution to a physical problem."
Haha, that's not true at all! Dark matter is not defined by what it's not, it's defined by what it is: we see objecting reaction to some gravitational field. Nobody is proposing that Dark matter is not interacting with gravity the same way everything else does; it's the opposite. The point is that we see an effect that we know is usually caused by matter so there must be something like matter causing that same effect.
The First Way, on the other hand, attempts to claim that there is something completely different causing the exact same effects that we observe.
Dark matter: same effect, same type of cause; defined by what it is, how it affects other objects
Unmoved mover: same effect, different type of cause; defined by what it is not, how it is not itself like others
Hugo,
There seems to be to many subjects being addressed at once. So let me ask a simple question:
Do you think it is physically possible for a universe with finite space to contain an infinite number of physical objects each inhabiting a part of that finite space?
First post had a typo.
Ya I agree, it's not super efficient with so many back-and-forth...
"Do you think it is physically possible for a universe with finite space to contain an infinite number of physical objects each inhabiting a part of that infinite space?"
No that would be impossible, by definition.
But do we know whether the universe has finite space or whether this is a valid question?
(ya I assumed it meant 'part of that finite space')
Yes the size of the universe is finite. You can google it.
So, there cannot be an infinite number of space consuming particles occupying it. Right?
"Yes the size of the universe is finite."
The size of the observable universe is finite. By definition, we cannot know everything about what is beyond our finite observation boundaries though and it's not clear whether it even makes sense to talk about it that way.
"So, there cannot be an infinite number of..."
We cannot demonstrate that there is an infinite number of anything material. Infinity is a conceptual mathematical tool.
I've read quite a bit on the debate over whether the universe is infinite in extent or not, and the more I learn the more confusing it gets. But what everyone seems to agree on is that, regardless of how large the universe actually is, there is a theoretical limit as to how much of it we can actually ever see. And there is no conceivable way of observing anything past that limit.
So to to all intents and purposes, our universe is finite, and always will be (unless some future advance in our understanding of physics overturns everything we now believe about C (the speed of light) being an unbreakable absolute).
Hugo,
In the case of counting things, an infinite number means unbounded, without limit. It's apparent that there are not an infinite number of things occupying space in even a universe of infinite space. Because each possible space in an infinite universe would be occupied by an one of an infinite number of space consuming (and massive) particles. In that case, there would be no space for a particle to move to since it would already be occupied by another particle and gravitation would be infinite in all directions. Nothing would move (and it would be very stuffy). We can see that's not the case.
But actually the talk about infinite particles misses the main point.
The motion of the boy in the wagon does not involve infinite space or particles and still requires an explanation of how moving things without the power to move themselves are ultimately keep moving.
Starhopper,
I was sure you fell asleep. I purposely dissed Pluto as not being a planet and you didn't say a word! :-)
Starhopper said...
"...here is no conceivable way of observing anything past that limit.
So to to all intents and purposes, our universe is finite..."
Our observations are finite...
bmiller said...
"In the case of counting things, an infinite number means unbounded, without limit"
That's what infinity represents, yes; it's a mathematical tool.
"It's apparent that there are not an infinite number of things occupying space in even a universe of infinite space.[...]"
You started that paragraph with an hypothetical infinite universe and we can't tell whether that actually makes sense, physically. So I am not sure why you go on after that.
(I want to pause here to follow your advice from above... keeping it simple and not moving forward the second a sentence isn't clear.)
P.S. I could have added another quick comment though: it's bizarre to link to what looks like high school level physics schematics discussing Newton's laws; we know these are approximations. So of course we are looking for explanations as to how moving things move, but we are way passed the simple systems described there.
Hugo,
You started that paragraph with an hypothetical infinite universe and we can't tell whether that actually makes sense, physically. So I am not sure why you go on after that.
I went on to address your position that the universe could actually be infinite in space and to show that even if it was, there could not exist an infinite number of massive extended particles and motion too. Although I think it's obvious that we don't live in such a universe.
P.S. I could have added another quick comment though: it's bizarre to link to what looks like high school level physics schematics discussing Newton's laws; we know these are approximations. So of course we are looking for explanations as to how moving things move, but we are way passed the simple systems described there.
I linked to that example to point out that this example does not involve infinite space or particles and still requires an explanation of how moving things without the power to move themselves are ultimately keep moving.
Do you think it does involve infinite space or particles?
And regardless of what Starhopper says, Pluto is not a planet :-)
bmiller said...
"I went on to address your position that the universe could actually be infinite in space and to show that even if it was, there could not exist an infinite number of massive extended particles and motion too."
But the universe is not some sort of big box with stuff in it. The particles/fields/forces/energy that form the universe are not just in the universe, they are the universe. So when talking about an hypothetical infinite universe, we're already talking about an infinite number of material objects. There is no distinction between 'infinite space' and 'infinite number of material things'.
"Although I think it's obvious that we don't live in such a universe."
Objectively, it's wrong to claim that we don't live in such universe. Nobody can make that case because of the limitations stated before.
" I linked to that example to point out that this example does not involve infinite space or particles and still requires an explanation of how moving things without the power to move themselves are ultimately keep moving."
Right, you went back to using an analogy...
"Do you think it does involve infinite space or particles?"
A boy in a wagon doesn't involve infinite space, no... wtf, lol.
"And regardless of what Starhopper says, Pluto is not a planet :-)"
Well, at least we'll agree on 1 thing for sure!
I refuse to be goaded, bmiller... :)
I refuse to be goaded, bmiller... :)
Rats! You're spoiling my fun. :-)
Hugo,
A boy in a wagon doesn't involve infinite space, no... wtf, lol.
Does it involve infinite particles?
No, go on...
Does it involve infinite particles?
No, go on...
Good. Another point of agreement. We are copacetic! Now we don't need to be distracted by talking about infinite particles and infinite space.
None of the things in that example can move themselves and although some may be moving another, they too are being moved. Since we agree that there are a finite number of things moving and being moved, and none can move themselves they must be moved by something that can move them without itself moving or else it too would become one in the set of moving things being moved by something else.
bmiller, you jumped ahead... I will stick to word-by-word instead of commenting on the whole.
" ...we don't need to be distracted by talking about infinite particles and infinite space.
None of the things in that example can move themselves and although some may be moving another, they too are being moved. Since we agree that there are a finite number of things moving and being moved, and none can move themselves... "
But you specified "in that example", so we're just talking about the 'boy in the wagon' example. So when you say 'none can move themselves' we are just talking about the boy and the wagon, and that's why there are people pushing the wagon, otherwise it wouldn't move itself. Now, the people can also not move themselves, is that the next point?
(Perhaps you'll just copy/paste the same but the stop was essential)
Now, the people can also not move themselves, is that the next point?
Actually, I was including the girls pushing the boy in the wagon as part of the example since that is how the example started, but yes they cannot move themselves primarily either.
There are plenty of free-body diagrams on the internet, but most involve inclines or examples of tension (like the earlier diagram I linked to) rather than compression and friction like this one even though it's rather cartoonish.
"they cannot move themselves primarily either."
Why do you specify primarily?
Because that is the distinction made in the SCG.
Why do you think?
Because he distinguishes among 3 types of movement as mentioned in paragraph [5] of the linked SCG.
This, starting at Chapter 13 [4], right?
"[4] In this proof, there are two propositions that need to be proved, namely, that everything that is moved is moved by another, and that in movers and things moved one cannot proceed to infinity.
[5] The first of these propositions Aristotle proves in three ways..."
i.e. not infinite, which cannot be justified, and assuming different types of movement, which doesn't fit modern physics.
Since we have agreed that the wagon example does not involve infinite anything, let's stay on that topic, OK?
and assuming different types of movement, which doesn't fit modern physics.
Modern physics tells us that material objects do not move themselves and remains silent otherwise since that is outside the area of it's competence. But it's not outside of philosophy's area of competence, which is what we are discussing. These notions of movement do not contradict anything in physics and have a greater explanatory power in answering why things that cannot move themselves still move.
Let's go back up then...
bmiller: '...they cannot move themselves primarily...'
Hugo: Why do you specify primarily?
bmiller: Because that is the distinction made in the SCG [...] he distinguishes among 3 types of movement as mentioned in paragraph [5] of the linked SCG.
Now, I am asking, are you referring to this?
"[4] In this proof, there are two propositions that need to be proved, namely, that everything that is moved is moved by another, and that in movers and things moved one cannot proceed to infinity.
[5] The first of these propositions Aristotle proves in three ways..."
You did not answer... if yes, infinite is used right there before paragraph [5] so I am not sure why we should ignore that. It seems pretty essential to the argument.
It might help answer this too:
"...These notions of movement do not contradict anything in physics..."
But which 'notions of movement' are you referring to? You said it's not related to infinite chains, that we shouldn't use analogies, and that it's not relevant to discuss accidental vs essential series of moving things...
Hugo,
Now, I am asking, are you referring to this?
This is what I posted:
Because that is the distinction made in the SCG [...] he distinguishes among 3 types of movement as mentioned in paragraph [5] of the linked SCG.
This is [5]:
[5] The first of these propositions Aristotle proves in three ways..."
You did not answer... if yes, infinite is used right there before paragraph [5] so I am not sure why we should ignore that. It seems pretty essential to the argument.
[5] refers to "The first of these propositions". "The first of these propositions" does not involve infinite anything. Since we both agree that the example of the wagon does not involve infinite space or particles, it is a point of agreement we can agree on. There is more to the argument than just the second proposal, and in my estimation it really is not central to the argument.
But which 'notions of movement' are you referring to?
Sections [5], [6] and [7] explain the differences. Wrt the wagon example, we all agree that there are not infinite parts or space.
Oops. Left out the quote of [5]
[5] The first of these propositions Aristotle proves in three ways. The first way is as follows. If something moves itself, it must have within itself the principle of its own motion; otherwise, it is clearly moved by another. Furthermore, it must be primarily moved. This means that it must be moved by reason of itself, and not by reason of a part of itself, as happens when an animal is moved by the motion of its foot. For, in this sense, a whole would not be moved by itself, but a part, and one part would be moved by another. It is also necessary that a self-moving being be divisible and have parts, since, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4], whatever is moved is divisible.
HERE is the section from Physics referred to. It's a link to the Aquinas Commentary on Aristotle rather than directly to Physics for obvious reasons.
bmiller said...
In your example of the skater, once the skater stops pushing and starts rolling all parts of the skater are moving and so the skater is moving 'primarily'. When the skater is pushing against the ground, part of the body is at rest and part is moving just like you pointed out previously.
So, the muscles that moved the body on skates have moved themselves primarily (they moved by reason of themselves, and not by reason of a part of themselves). We now have a counter-example to an assumption of the First Way, nullifying its conclusion.
bmiller said...
Do you think it is physically possible for a universe with finite space to contain an infinite number of physical objects each inhabiting a part of that finite space?
Is there a minimum size for an object? If not, then the answer is yes, it's possible.
One Brow,
So, the muscles that moved the body on skates have moved themselves primarily (they moved by reason of themselves, and not by reason of a part of themselves). We now have a counter-example to an assumption of the First Way, nullifying its conclusion.
Thanks for including the parenthetical portion.
The leg of the skater may be the only part of the skater moving, but it wouldn't be moving unless it was part of the skater. This can be demonstated by removing the leg from the skater.
bmiller,
So the answer was 'yes', we're looking at the same chapter (13). Section [5] follows this:
"[4] In this proof, there are two propositions that need to be proved, namely, that everything that is moved is moved by another, and that in movers and things moved one cannot proceed to infinity."
The 2 propositions are referred to as 'need to be proved', so why are you saying that the 2nd isn't essential?
Hugo,
I said the second was not central to the argument. The first proposition is.
We now have an example, we both agree on, of a finite number of moving movers, none of which can move themselves. We therefore must conclude they are in motion due to an unmoved mover.
Ok let's stick to just that example then:
- Finite number of moving movers, check
- None can move themselves, check
Therefore...
- Each of them is moved by something else
That's the scope of the example. How do you get to an unmoved mover from that?
(I get that you're referencing the text, but concretely, building up from the example, what's next? We haven't agreed on anything else yet. What do you need to go on; perhaps another specific statement/premise, but which one?)
From March 18, 2019 3:46 PM:
None of the things in that example can move themselves and although some may be moving another, they too are being moved. Since we agree that there are a finite number of things moving and being moved, and none can move themselves they must be moved by something that can move them without itself moving or else it too would become one in the set of moving things being moved by something else.
Great, so the 3rd line was correct:
- Finite number of moving movers, check
- None can move themselves, check
- Each of them is moved by something else, check
Now, you're adding:
- They must be moved by something that can move them without itself moving
But why?
- Or else it too would become one in the set of moving things being moved by something else.
But the set here was just the set in the context of the example; what we agree on was that "We now have an example, we both agree on, of a finite number of moving movers, none of which can move themselves." We just have the boy, the wagon, and 2 people pushing. How do you get to an unmoved mover?
Looking at it the other way around:
- Or else it too would become one in the set of moving things being moved by something else. This means we assume the set we started with is fixed, we cannot add to them. Sure.
- Therefore, They must be moved by something that can move them without itself moving
But why? What is that?
bmiller said...
So, the muscles that moved the body on skates have moved themselves primarily (they moved by reason of themselves, and not by reason of a part of themselves). We now have a counter-example to an assumption of the First Way, nullifying its conclusion.
Thanks for including the parenthetical portion.
The leg of the skater may be the only part of the skater moving, but it wouldn't be moving unless it was part of the skater. This can be demonstated by removing the leg from the skater.
I'm not sure what this response is supposed to mean. I don't see how it alters that the muscles in the leg moved by reason of themselves.
bmiller said...
We now have an example, we both agree on, of a finite number of moving movers, none of which can move themselves. We therefore must conclude they are in motion due to an unmoved mover.
Why cant't the unmoved mover be the explosion of the singularity that immediately precede the Big Bang?
Hugo,
We just have the boy, the wagon, and 2 people pushing. How do you get to an unmoved mover?
The example is of a 2 girls pushing a wagon. The source of the motion is included in the example otherwise there would be no motion. Since no material object can move itself primarily, that source of motion must be unmoved.
One Brow,
I'm not sure what this response is supposed to mean. I don't see how it alters that the muscles in the leg moved by reason of themselves.
If legs were the source of their own movement, they would be able to walk when detached from the body. I don't think they can (unless you hooked them up to some evil robot body).
One Brow,
Why cant't the unmoved mover be the explosion of the singularity that immediately precede the Big Bang?
The First Way doesn't consider this scenario. The First Way starts with the assumption that the universe has always existed and motion has always existed.
bmiller said...
If legs were the source of their own movement, they would be able to walk when detached from the body. I don't think they can (unless you hooked them up to some evil robot body).
All you are saying is that the motion would be different. It would be the same contraction without the addition effect of causing the body to walk, and the muscles are still resonsible for their own motion.
bmiller said...
The First Way doesn't consider this scenario. The First Way starts with the assumption that the universe has always existed and motion has always existed.
Do you realize that is an argument against the reliability of the First Way?
bmiller, so the last line wasn't correct?
- Finite number of moving movers, check
- None can move themselves, check
- Each of them is moved by something else, check?
But now you said:
- The source of the motion is included in the example
So they are not moved by something else?
Are the 2 girls pushing the wagon moved by something else or not?
"The First Way starts with the assumption that the universe has always existed and motion has always existed."
Infinite in the past?
Hugo,
But now you said:
- The source of the motion is included in the example
Sorry, I thought that was obvious since we are discussing the source of motion.
So they are not moved by something else?
Are the 2 girls pushing the wagon moved by something else or not?
No, they must be moved by something that is not moving.
Hugo,
The First Way is discussing the source of motion related to the kind demonstrated in the example. The girls start to push the wagon, they continue to push the wagon and presumably the stop pushing the wagon. This means a finite number of things moving a finite space in a finite time.
We're looking at 2 people pushing a wagon, you say:
"No, they must be moved by something that is not moving."
Why?
"The First Way starts with the assumption that the universe has always existed and motion has always existed."
Infinite in the past?
(Nothing to do with the wagon here, just the assumption you listed)
Hugo,
We're looking at 2 people pushing a wagon, you say:
"No, they must be moved by something that is not moving."
Why?
Because:
Since we agree that there are a finite number of things moving and being moved, and none can move themselves they must be moved by something that can move them without itself moving or else it too would become one in the set of moving things being moved by something else.
Hugo,
It's just a matter of historical record that Aristotle thought the universe had always existed.
So it is irrelevant to the argument whether there was a beginning or not. Aristotle thought there was no beginning and Aquinas thought there was a beginning couldn't be proven with the available data in his time. Aquinas, however, did think it was significant that the unmoved mover could be proven even if the universe did not have a beginning.
bmiller, you repeated again that:
"Since we agree that there are a finite number of things moving and being moved, and none can move themselves they must be moved by something that can move them without itself moving or else it too would become one in the set of moving things being moved by something else."
But I am trying to get the explanation for that statement, in bold, because that includes the conclusion that there is something not moving, a primer mover, moving things; that's what we are trying to justify.
Let's make it even clearer; that statement in bold has an OR in it:
- They must be moved by something that can move them without itself moving (That's the conclusion)
OR
- else it too would become one in the set of moving things being moved by something else
This is a statement that requires justification. Given that we started with a finite set of moving things, in our example, why is it that we must add a member to that set or posit an unmoved mover? Why can't the movers in the set be moved by another mover outside our pre-determined set? We didn't start with the set of 'all' moving movers; we agreed to start with just a very limited number of moving movers.
bmiller, you said:
"Aquinas, however, did think it was significant that the unmoved mover could be proven even if the universe did not have a beginning."
and
"The First Way starts with the assumption that the universe has always existed and motion has always existed."
See One Brow's comment...
Hugo,
But I am trying to get the explanation for that statement, in bold, because that includes the conclusion that there is something not moving, a primer mover, moving things; that's what we are trying to justify.
Yes of course, that's the point of the argument to demonstrate that an unmoved mover is required.
We agreed, in the example, that there are a finite number of moving things that require something outside of themselves to move them and they are moving. The source of the movement must also be present in the example because they are moving. So, since none of these types of things can be a source of movement for any of them, there must be a different type of thing that is moving them. If that thing itself was moving, then it would just be another of the same type and also lack a source of movement.
The only solution is that the source of movement is present and ultimately causing the movement (because things are moving) but not moving itself (because it would then be just the type of thing lacking a source of movement).
If there is an alternative you have in mind, please share.
The First Way is an examination of a present motion while we observe it happening. Let's not change the subject since it has nothing to do with what happened before that particular motion started or after it ceases as I mentioned on March 15, 2019 8:27.
bmiller said...
" Yes of course, that's the point of the argument to demonstrate that an unmoved mover is required.
We agreed, in the example, that there are a finite number of moving things that require something outside of themselves to move them and they are moving. The source of the movement must also be present in the example because they are moving.
"
Ok
" So, since none of these types of things can be a source of movement for any of them, there must be a different type of thing that is moving them."
Why different?
"If that thing itself was moving, then it would just be another of the same type and also lack a source of movement."
Right, but the argument argues that there is a primary source of some sort; so stating there must be a source, a different type of source, is not a justification. It's just stating the conclusion that we are trying to reach.
"The only solution is that the source of movement is present and ultimately causing the movement (because things are moving) but not moving itself (because it would then be just the type of thing lacking a source of movement)."
Only solution? That's presumptuous... what if there is no ultimate source? Or something we cannot define properly as we don't have full knowledge of our universe.
In other words, I don't know what other alternatives are out there; nobody knows. The material objects we started with are part of our giant, complex and difficult to grasp universe. But because we don't know doesn't warrant accepting some other explanation.
Probably a good time now to include what I had written, but not posted, as a summary, several days ago.
---
bmiller, basically, you went back to using an analogy, extrapolating it to the entire observable universe, and assuming your conclusion.
1) You are trying to prove that "something that can move them without itself moving" exist. I don't even get how you can properly define something like that. That's why you need to use analogy... it's "like" the power station at the beginning of a power line. It's "like" the people pushing the boy in the wagon.
2) But instead of detailing what that "non-moving" thing would be, all you are doing is stating that "or else it too would become one in the set of moving things being moved by something else", which is exactly the same as stating "or else the set would be infinite". But you cannot prove nor disprove that the set, i.e. the causal series of all material things, is infinite.
TL;DR we see movement, you already believe there is some primary unmoved mover causing movement, therefore the movement must be caused by that unmoved mover, because what else could?
The End.
Hugo,
I'm not going to address your personal complaints against me. So you wasted your time composing and pasting that 'summary'.
As far as I can tell you have 2 things to offer against the First Way.
1) There are other possible conclusions.
2) Movement does not require a source.
Regarding 1), since you think nobody can know other possible conclusions, it seems we are left with the conclusion of the First Way as the only viable candidate.
Regarding 2), I assumed you agreed with me that in the example of the wagon, things (girls) were the source of movement of other things (boy and wagon). It would certainly defeat the First Way if things weren't the source of other things moving, but do you really believe this? Do I have that right?
bmiller,
You got nothing right, that's the point.
1) Yes, there are other options. We can't even know all the options.
2) Movement we see require a source, yes. Your interpretation is wrong. Most of what you say is wrong. Everything we see moving has a source, a natural source we can observe and investigate.
I am not making this about you, you're even wrong about that. It's the First Way that is wrong... the only personal bit is that you think it's correct and still defend it, after all the critiques and inconsistencies with what we know, today.
Again, you start with a freaking wagon pushed by 2 people and conclude, therefore some unmoved mover caused it to move... that's what Aristotle and Aquinas thought, for semi-good reasons, but you have no reason.
bmiller,
Last message, [well not really, see question below] seriously. I spent way too much time on this. Here is the truth.
- You're right, in the last few months, maybe even years, I came here only to "scold" theists.
-...
Seriously, you, the real person behins bmiller z is there any point writing the rest? Tell me. Yes, or not yes.
Or definitely no?
Wow... typos...
Seriously, you, the real person behind bmiller,
Is there any point writing the rest? Tell me.
Yes, or not yes.
Or definitely no?
OK, so whether the universe has always existed or had a beginning is irrelevant to the First Way.
I repeat:
bmiller said...
If legs were the source of their own movement, they would be able to walk when detached from the body. I don't think they can (unless you hooked them up to some evil robot body).
All you are saying is that the motion would be different. It would be the same contraction without the addition effect of causing the body to walk, and the muscles are still responsible for their own motion.
Hugo,
Regarding 1):
You have not shown the First Way is invalid nor unsound, so people have warrant to believe in an Unmoved Mover. You have not produced any other option although you claim there are. That's not convincing or even enough to warrant a belief.
2) Movement we see require a source, yes. Your interpretation is wrong. Most of what you say is wrong.
Everything we see moving has a source, a natural source we can observe and investigate.
There is nothing unnatural about an unmoved mover. Nature would not be in motion without it and motion is natural.
I have no idea what your last 2 posts/rants were about. It's no secret you only show up here to scold theists. Seems like a waste of your time to me, but hey, it's your time.
One Brow,
The legs of a person are part of that person as long as they are attached to that person. The person exists as a unique individual being. So legs move only insofar as they are part of the individual being, the person.
Of course legs may twitch for a while after severance, but that will stop and the leg will not survive as in individual being.
bmiller said...
Of course legs may twitch for a while after severance, but that will stop and the leg will not survive as in individual being.
So, for a brief period of time, they move themselves. I'm glad we agree here.
So, for a brief period of time, they move themselves. I'm glad we agree here.
Nope we don't agree. For the same reason a thing composed of parts cannot move itself primarily.
bmiller said...
Nope we don't agree. For the same reason a thing composed of parts cannot move itself primarily.
Than what is moving the muscle when it is twitching?
Than what is moving the muscle when it is twitching?
Immediately different parts are moving other parts. Ultimately all motion is due to the unmoved mover.
bmiller said...
"I have no idea what your last 2 posts/rants were about. It's no secret you only show up here to scold theists. Seems like a waste of your time to me, but hey, it's your time."
Oh it was just going back to what I first wrote in this long thread. Basically, I have always loved to learn about others' point of view in order to make sure my views are as accurate as possible. But, I have not learn much, if anything, in years on that main topic of the existence of God. The blog was useful for a lot of other topics, but not that one.
So yea, I have to admit that the pleasure I was getting was mostly from pointing out flaws in others' argument and waiting to see whether they would be able to correct their mistakes. I think 'scold' is way too strong of a word though, as that was never 'angry' or anything like that, it was really just for fun, but that was just to use the same word.
Therefore, in all honesty, what I was trying to do over the last few days was help you fix some reasoning error you're making, slowly, step-by-step, to show you where you make assumptions that are not warranted. I knew I wouldn't change my mind myself. I can't, because I know what you're getting wrong and cannot revert back to making the errors you're making. Unfortunately, I failed.
You may find that presumptuous but it's simply the truth. And what makes it so obvious to me is that the bar is so much lower on my 'side'. I am not claiming that there is no God because the First Way is wrong; I am not claiming to know what caused the universe to be moving. I am stating the facts about what we know, and try to show you how they are inconsistent with the argument. But you don't see it that way. The main giveaway was your comment on how this is not a matter of Physics, when it really is. I purposely ignored it to try to make you realize in a different way why, but it didn't work. Aristotle and Aquinas didn't have the correct picture of the universe. I would argue their arguments were still not great, but believable at least; today they are just plain wrong.
In other words, realizing the First Way is wrong wouldn't change much; it wouldn't be a reason for you not to believe in God, it wouldn't make me right about anything, it would just make you not wrong, bmiller. You would still have the Argument from Reason as a better argument, for instance. But you keep making mistakes after mistakes without fixing them, sometimes because you don't care, as you mentioned, and sometimes because you're just not smart enough apparently, like when you don't realize you're being a troll yourself, or not quoting things properly, or not inferring the right meaning from sentences, etc...
The latest example is in your last response to me:
"You have not produced any other option although you claim there are."
This shows that you still ignore what we collectively know and don't know about Physics, and why it makes no sense to even ask that kind of question. I already said we cannot know what all the options are, and I named 1 in the form of Stephan Hawkin's book and another, simpler, by just stating that it's possible the chain of moving movers is infinite. These are 2 options already but you claim I listed none... yet another mistake. But it's worse than that, because the more important point is: we cannot know, and never will, because we now know enough to have realized how incredibly vast the universe is and how irrelevant it is to talk about motion from our limited perspective the way the First Way does, and extrapolate to the entire universe. That's just not how the world works; it's way more complicated than that.
So, in all seriousness and although that will sound arrogant again, if you ever have a question on that, just post it here... I don't know what other topics you might be better than me at, but if I had questions on that, I would ask you; but here, in this specific case, you are so behind that there is really not much more I can do to help you see the picture correctly. Perhaps you'll keep going with One Brow and get to a point where you see what he is trying to show you...
Sorry for the length, and looking forward to see if you have anything useful to add.
bmiller said...
Than what is moving the muscle when it is twitching?
Immediately different parts are moving other parts. Ultimately all motion is due to the unmoved mover.
That's not an answer, just a repetition of dogma. If you want to treat the First Way as something to have faith in, fine. But that's not the same as proof. The First Way is supposed to be something to convince non-believers, not more apologia for believers.
Hugo,
Started to read your post but lost interest when I didn't see any relevant arguments so I stopped. If you want a response, you should just list bullet points.
One Brow,
I don't know what your point is. A severed leg is composed of parts. As far as I know muscles contract by one part interacting with other parts. Is that not right?
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think there is a difference between an animate object and an inanimate object?
Blogger bmiller said...
One Brow,
I don't know what your point is. A severed leg is composed of parts. As far as I know muscles contract by one part interacting with other parts. Is that not right?
We were discussing a severed muscle, not a severed leg. What do you think these parts of the muscle are?
Let me ask you a question.
Do you think there is a difference between an animate object and an inanimate object?
I assume you are asking if there is a difference between a living and a non-living object. There are a several notions an object requires to be living, and some objects possess a few of them but not all of them, and so bridge the gap. So, there is a difference between the archetype of living and not living, but no actual divide.
This will tie back to the First Way somehow?
One Brow,
We were discussing a severed muscle, not a severed leg. What do you think these parts of the muscle are?
I thought you were discussing a severed leg. Do you think the muscle is not made of parts?
This will tie back to the First Way somehow?
Just trying to guess what your point is. As I mentioned, I'm not a very good mind reader and I'll probably just lose interest if you don't feel like explaining your arguments.
Pluto also is made out of parts, so obviously it's not a planet! :-)
bmiller said...
I thought you were discussing a severed leg.
I was discussing how the muscle was responsible for it's own movement. I don't see how that changes when the leg is severed or not.
Do you think the muscle is not made of parts?
Which means what? Everything larger than quark is made of parts. Why is this relevant?
Just trying to guess what your point is. As I mentioned, I'm not a very good mind reader and I'll probably just lose interest if you don't feel like explaining your arguments.
My point is that the muscles move by themselves, and not by some part of themselves, so they are moving primarily.
One Brow,
Do you think the muscle is not made of parts?
Which means what? Everything larger than quark is made of parts. Why is this relevant?
[5] The first of these propositions Aristotle proves in three ways. The first way is as follows. If something moves itself, it must have within itself the principle of its own motion; otherwise, it is clearly moved by another. Furthermore, it must be primarily moved. This means that it must be moved by reason of itself, and not by reason of a part of itself, as happens when an animal is moved by the motion of its foot. For, in this sense, a whole would not be moved by itself, but a part, and one part would be moved by another. It is also necessary that a self-moving being be divisible and have parts, since, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4], whatever is moved is divisible.
I think passage addresses all your points. A thing that consists of parts cannot move itself primarily because one part always moves the other.
When the leg is part of the body, it moves while other parts of the body are at rest during walking. Walking changes the location of the body via motion.
When the leg is severed, it is no longer part of the body, so it cannot be said to be walking (at least as far as the body it was severed from is concerned). It may or may not twitch, but as you say, it's still considered motion. In both cases however, all the parts of a muscle do not move at once. Or do you claim they all move instantaneously?
bmiller said...
" Started to read your post but lost interest when I didn't see any relevant arguments so I stopped. If you want a response, you should just list bullet points."
So on the one hand, you don't pretend you don't care about people, just about argument. But on the other hand, you wrote things like that:
" I rather doubt Hugo will go away. As far as I can tell his only purpose for being here has been to scold Theists for being stupid, bad people, not to learn the reasons they hold their positions. That much is plain from this thread.
It seems almost like he thinks it's his "religious" duty to proclaim his "truth" to people so they will be enlightened like him and stop being dumb. But when it comes to supporting his position with rational discussion he is outraged that anyone should question him. Missionary work wasn't supposed to be like this! The ignorant should just accept his proclamations
Kind of ironic then when he accuses the Theists of doing what he is *actually* doing when they are chomping at the bit to get to that rational discussion (which he avoids)."
And that's just one example... there could be at least one per week over like 3 years...
And when I try to politely correct your misconceptions, you couldn't care less and again pretend you just want to engage in specifics of arguments.
And when we go into the details of a specific argument, you are incapable of seeing the errors in the argument!
So here's the summary of my last few points in bullet form for you
(will you be able to just focus on that?)
* The First Way assumes its own conclusion that it's possible for something to cause movement without moving itself.
* In reality, every moving thing we inspect is moved by something that is itself also moving.
* Even after going point by point, slowly, you as the individual behind 'bmiller' isn't able to grasp that the First Way is thus not sound. It is usually presented in a valid form, but the premises are not justified.
* If you have any specific questions to help you understand that, please go ahead and ask.
* If I ever want to know more about the First Way; I will ask you. Just like I would ask a Start Trek fan to explain the Star Trek universe to me.
Any questions? Perhaps you'll get them answered by continuing with One Brow...
bmiller said...
" For, in this sense, a whole would not be moved by itself, but a part, and one part would be moved by another. It is also necessary that a self-moving being be divisible and have parts, since, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4], whatever is moved is divisible.
I think passage addresses all your points. A thing that consists of parts cannot move itself primarily because one part always moves the other."
That's a good example of some statement that makes sense only in the context of Aristotle/Aquinas worldview where 'parts' are not well defined because they just didn't know. It doesn't fit modern Physic.
Don't you see why? How can we clarify?
Hugo,
Thanks for supplying bullets for what you want me to respond to.
Your first bullet demonstrates you don't recognize what a valid argument is.
Your second bullet is just a rewording of a premise of the First Way. Congratulations.
Your third bullet is contradicted by your second bullet.
Regarding your fourth bullet, I'll keep your offer for comedic material in mind.
Regarding your fifth bullet, don't bother to ask either of us since in both cases big words are involved.
I wonder if you've noticed Hugo, that the 3 quotes of mine you posted are all true. You admitted as much a few posts ago. Why be upset at the Truth?
Strange indeed.
Ah you found this strange? So you really don't get it; I'm insisting it's funny bmiller, it's entertaining. You're super funny! Then you ask why I'm upset... what do you think my reaction is?
Here's another funny thing. I remark on the fact that you're inconsistent with you're self-serving comments about how it's just about arguments, not people, but also comment on people all the time. Just to be snarky, funny. What do you do? The same thing again! But did you do it on purpose? Did you purposely not focus on just the bullets or you just couldn't resist, after writing your first reply?
Regarding the argument, just in case it isn't clear yet, it's wrong. It's inconsequential. And you should keep trying to understand whether Physics contradict it.
Hugo,
Today the study of physics starts with certain metaphysical presuppositions and boundaries within which it confines itself. For instance, the question of whether an object is alive or dead is excluded from the discussion of physics.
Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics studies the whole of reality and not just a part. Philosophers recognize that Aristotle was discussing what we call 'philosophy' today regardless of the title of his works.
Physicists who claim that philosophy is irrelevant are ignorant of the fact that they are actually practicing philosophy by claiming that and are demonstrating they are poor at philosophy.
As far as the First Way is concerned, you've already agreed that material things cannot move themselves primarily but yet they move and so there must be a source for that movement. It follows that the agent must be different than the patient otherwise the patient would not move.
The fact that physics classes do not discuss this question is because it is outside the boundary of the study of physics.
This was what Starhopper was referring to about the drunk only looking for his keys under the streetlight.
"...you've already agreed that material things cannot move themselves primarily..."
*facepalm*
LOL
Like I said.
Big words seems to scare you.:-)
'Primarily' is too complicated ya!
Well, for you it seems... you didn't get that adding this word changes everything about what we 'agreed on', right?
Paying attention to details is a lot of effort!
Paying attention to details is a lot of effort!
Well, it seems it is for you. It was in the original link, One Brow didn't miss it and we've been discussing it for quite a while. I think I'll stop feeding the troll now.
It was never part of what we agreed on! That's why I asked you why you're adding 'primarily' when you did. But you didn't get it!
And no, I'm not trolling you, I am laughing at you, to your face, without any filter nor hidden motives, for being so bad at processing 1 specific conversation. I started by telling you "do you really think I'll debate you now?" since all you had done was silly poking, I wrote a full paragraph of how I can telll too, and I told you again that it's all entertainment...
Not because it's too complicated, not because "big" words are used (none are...) and not because I can't debate this issue. But only because it's so freaking funny and entertaining to read someone struggle so much with such simple things!
In case that's still not clear:
It's funny because of how bad you are this, bmiller.
bmiller said...
his means that it must be moved by reason of itself, and not by reason of a part of itself, as happens when an animal is moved by the motion of its foot. For, in this sense, a whole would not be moved by itself, but a part, and one part would be moved by another.
Aquinas here has selected one type of example, and pretends it represents every type of example, when it does not.
If you have a link to the Physics 4 link Aquinas relies on, we can add that in. Otherwise, I have no reason to echo Aquinas' trust in the argument.
It may or may not twitch, but as you say, it's still considered motion. In both cases however, all the parts of a muscle do not move at once. Or do you claim they all move instantaneously?
Yes, all parts of a muscle can contract at basically the same time, and when they contract, the muscle moves itself primarily, as well as possibly moving something else.
Hugo Pelland said...
So here's the summary of my last few points in bullet form for you
(will you be able to just focus on that?)
* The First Way assumes its own conclusion that it's possible for something to cause movement without moving itself.
* In reality, every moving thing we inspect is moved by something that is itself also moving.
* Even after going point by point, slowly, you as the individual behind 'bmiller' isn't able to grasp that the First Way is thus not sound. It is usually presented in a valid form, but the premises are not justified.
bmiller said...
Your first bullet demonstrates you don't recognize what a valid argument is.
No, it demonstrates that he does. You may disagree on whether the First Way assumes "it's possible for something to cause movement without moving itself", but I am sure you agree that it is improper to assume your conclusion directly.
Your second bullet is just a rewording of a premise of the First Way. Congratulations.
The First Way claims that anything that causes motion is itself in motion? That would be the opposite of having an unmoved mover.
Your third bullet is contradicted by your second bullet.
I don't think you understood his second bullet.
On Brow,
If you have a link to the Physics 4 link Aquinas relies on, we can add that in. Otherwise, I have no reason to echo Aquinas' trust in the argument.
Other types of movement are discussed in the first link but regardless, there is Aquinas COMMENTARY ON ARISTOTLE'S PHYSICS. Just click on the link to the chapter of interest.
Yes, all parts of a muscle can contract at basically the same time, and when they contract, the muscle moves itself primarily, as well as possibly moving something else.
I disagree that all parts of a muscle move at once. Additionally, the theory is that nerves initiate muscle movement. Even the 'involuntary' movement of an animal's legs are proximately caused by the nervous system.
On Brow,
No, it demonstrates that he does.
The First Way does not assume the conclusion in it's premises.
The First Way claims that anything that causes motion is itself in motion?
That's not what the second bullet says.
I don't think you understood his second bullet.
I think I did.
One Brow,
bmiller said we can all agree on:
3/14: "Thank you for telling me that you think a hand pushing a stick pushing a stone is physically possible. I think so too. We are in agreement."
3/14: "One Brow, Since we appear to be in agreement that a hand moving a stick moving a stone is physically possible I think it would be a distraction to discuss..."
3/15: "The example of a hand moving a stick that is moving a stone is used only to illustrate that the hand is ultimately responsible for the movement of the stone although the stick is used as an instrument instead of the hand directly moving the stone. If we can all agree on this..."
3/15: " we all agree that it's physically possible for a hand to be moving a stick that is moving a stone"
3/15: "we all agree that it's physically possible for a moving hand to be moving a stick moving a stone"
3/15: "I think I've made it clear that I don't care what you call a moving hand, moving a stick moving a stone as long as we agree that it's physically possible."
3/15: "- Nothing can move themselves, [In the limited given example]
Good. That is the major point of the argument and I'm pleased to see we agree."
3/17: "Since we agree that nothing moves itself yet things are moving"
3/17: "We've agreed that material objects cannot move themselves, yet we see them moving."
3/18: "Does it involve infinite particles? No, go on... Good. Another point of agreement."
3/18: "Since we agree that there are a finite number of things moving and being moved, and none can move themselves... " [specified "in that example"]"
3/18: "Since we have agreed that the wagon example does not involve infinite anything"
3/19: " Since we both agree that the example of the wagon does not involve infinite space or particles, it is a point of agreement we can agree on."
3/19: "Wrt the wagon example, we all agree that there are not infinite parts or space."
3/19: "We now have an example, we both agree on, of a finite number of moving movers, none of which can move themselves. "
3/20: "[copied 3/19]"
3/20: "We agreed, in the example, that there are a finite number of moving things that require something outside of themselves to move them and they are moving."
3/20: "you agreed with me that in the example of the wagon, things (girls) were the source of movement of other things (boy and wagon)"
And then... on March 23rd:
"As far as the First Way is concerned, you've already agreed that material things cannot move themselves primarily"
How can someone not see the difference!? Every time the jump was the same, but somewhere after the 'we agree' on. But in this one, it was right there in the same sentence. Adding 'primarily' implies the conclusion! The whole point of the argument is to prove there's an unmoved mover, a prime mover.
These many examples* and the contrast with what bmiller last wrote show the jump directly.
It shows what One Brow just summarized properly:
"You may disagree on whether the First Way assumes "it's possible for something to cause movement without moving itself", but I am sure you agree that it is improper to assume your conclusion directly."
*I didn't think there would be that many (18!) when searching for 'agree' in that thread. Fascinating! I had a few minutes to spare...
bmiller said...
his means that it must be moved by reason of itself, and not by reason of a part of itself, as happens when an animal is moved by the motion of its foot. For, in this sense, a whole would not be moved by itself, but a part, and one part would be moved by another.
Aquinas here has selected one type of example, and pretends it represents every type of example, when it does not.
If you have a link to the Physics 4 link Aquinas relies on, we can add that in. Otherwise, I have no reason to echo Aquinas' trust in the argument.
Other types of movement are discussed in the first link but regardless, there is Aquinas COMMENTARY ON ARISTOTLE'S PHYSICS. Just click on the link to the chapter of interest.
I went to VI, 4 at that link, and it was a discussing of whether a continuum can be composed of indivisibles, and had nothing to with " whatever is moved is divisible". If you do find the quotes in the commentary that show every type of motion of an animal has a part that is at rest, feel free to bring it into the discussion. For now, I I consider that claim unproven and countered by evidence.
However, I did find this gem:
Now if the terms 'continuous', 'in contact', and 'in succession' are understood as defined above things being 'continuous' if their extremities are one, 'in contact' if their extremities are together, and 'in succession' if there is nothing of their own kind intermediate between them—nothing that is continuous can be composed 'of indivisibles': e.g. a line cannot be composed of points, the line being continuous and the point indivisible.
Lines are continuous, and are composed of indivisible points.
I disagree that all parts of a muscle move at once.
YOu can disagree, but it is true nonetheless.
Additionally, the theory is that nerves initiate muscle movement. Even the 'involuntary' movement of an animal's legs are proximately caused by the nervous system.
You are now deviating from Aquinas' text. We were looking for whether the muscles moved primarily (by reason of themselves), and all of the motion of the muscles comes from the actions of the muscles.
Now, I'm not opposed to discussing alternative interpretations that deviate from Aquinas' text, if you want to change the topic of the discussion. However, as a reminder, it was you that narrowed the discussion in the first place. I'm not interested in nailing gelatin to a wall. Are we discussing just the argument Aquinas makes, or not?
The First Way does not assume the conclusion in it's premises.
As I acknowledged you would likely claim in my response, and which is not relevant to whether Hugo Pelland knows that assuming your conclusion is invalid.
I don't think you understood his second bullet.
I think I did.
Then, you understand why saying his second bullet would be a restatement of the First Way would mean the First Way disproved the unmoved mover?
More directly: his second bullet was not a restatement of the First Way, it is a rebuttal against it. Do you understand why?
One Brow,
You have too many thing listed in post to address at once. So I will break them into different posts.
I went to VI, 4 at that link, and it was a discussing of whether a continuum can be composed of indivisibles, and had nothing to with " whatever is moved is divisible".
It seems that you only read the first section of VI-4. It has 10 chapters.
Lines are continuous, and are composed of indivisible points.
This may be an interesting side topic to discuss later, but I'm not sure how you think it relates to the First Way.
YOu can disagree, but it is true nonetheless.
No it's not.
You are now deviating from Aquinas' text. We were looking for whether the muscles moved primarily (by reason of themselves), and all of the motion of the muscles comes from the actions of the muscles.
I'm not deviating from the text. The animal in question changes location by means of moving legs. As far as I can tell, you are telling me that the legs of an animal walk by themselves with no parts moving other parts. That's an interesting assertion, but you need to provide evidence of this from an authoritative source or provide a reasonable argument.
One Brow,
As I acknowledged you would likely claim in my response, and which is not relevant to whether Hugo Pelland knows that assuming your conclusion is invalid.
The fact that he made the false claim that the conclusion of the First Way was contained in the premises added to the fact that he has historically made similar false claims of "begging the question" provided me with the evidence to reach my conclusion. Of course I could be wrong and there could be other reasons for him doing so, such as arguing in bad faith, but I have warrant for my belief.
Then, you understand why saying his second bullet would be a restatement of the First Way would mean the First Way disproved the unmoved mover?
I understand what the words say. It does not disprove an unmoved mover. It is not a rebuttal.
bmiller said...
... but I have warrant for my belief.
I think the very invocation of the fallacy, whether you think it is appropriate or not, indicates that Hugo Pelland understands it is a fallacy.
I understand what the words say. It does not disprove an unmoved mover. It is not a rebuttal.
We can discuss whether it is a rebuttal, if you like. The point is, that "In reality, every moving thing we inspect is moved by something that is itself also moving." is not a restatement of the First Way nor any of its priors, and it was an error to claim it was.
One Brow,
I think the very invocation of the fallacy, whether you think it is appropriate or not, indicates that Hugo Pelland understands it is a fallacy.
A valid argument has premises and a conclusion and does not contain it's conclusion in it's premises. If he claimed the First Way did so, then he either does not understand the fallacy or cannot properly distinguish between a premise and a conclusion. Both are required to understand what constitutes a valid argument.
We can discuss whether it is a rebuttal, if you like. The point is, that "In reality, every moving thing we inspect is moved by something that is itself also moving." is not a restatement of the First Way nor any of its priors, and it was an error to claim it was.
Again, I disagree. Here is the beginning of the First Way:
Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense.
However, do you really want to spend your time discussing what you think someone else said rather than discussing the First Way itself?
bmiller said:
"Here is the beginning of the First Way:
Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense."
Does it say primarily here? No. Hence that's a valid premise that doesn't include the conclusion of the arguement.
But at some point, it will jump to a statement which implies that motion is caused by an unmoved mover, a primary source, a prime mover, something that doesn't move but cause movement.
The justification will then be "but we agreed that everything that is moved is moved by something else, primarily, otherwise nothing moves."
The jump between the 2 is never justified. The argumentation's validity depends on an implied assumption that movement is caused ultimately by an unmoved mover, i.e. the conclusion is assumed from the start, it's always implied, otherwise the argument is invalid.
bmiller just never sees the jump when it shows up explicitly or implicitly.
bmiller said...
A valid argument has premises and a conclusion and does not contain it's conclusion in it's premises.
That is part of Hugo Pelland's point, and shows that he does indeed understand what a valid argument is.
If he claimed the First Way did so, then he either does not understand the fallacy or cannot properly distinguish between a premise and a conclusion.
There are other possibilities.
We can discuss whether it is a rebuttal, if you like. The point is, that "In reality, every moving thing we inspect is moved by something that is itself also moving." is not a restatement of the First Way nor any of its priors, and it was an error to claim it was.
Again, I disagree. Here is the beginning of the First Way:
Everything that is moved is moved by another. That some things are in motion—for example, the sun—is evident from sense.
Just to be clear: you are saying that "In reality, every moving thing we inspect is moved by something that is itself also moving." is a part of the First Way. In other words, the First Way starts out saying that only things which move can move other things?
Do you understand why this quote negates the concept of some unmoved mover?
So, here's the thing. I know the First Way is supposed to lead to unmoved mover. This quote denies the possible existence of the unmoved mover. Yet, you insist this quote is part of the First Way. I don't see how you can hold to all three of those sentences.
However, do you really want to spend your time discussing what you think someone else said rather than discussing the First Way itself?
Right now, we are discussing what you claim is an equivalent of the First Way, but one that denies an unmoved mover would exist. I think that qualifies as discussing the First Way.
One Brow,
There are other possibilities.
Yes, I acknowedged that. But the fact there could be other possibilities doesn't mean I'm not right either. The more I read, the more I'm convinced I'm correct.
In other words, the First Way starts out saying that only things which move can move other things?
No, that is not what the First Way starts out saying, nor is it what the second bullet said.
In reality, every moving thing we inspect is moved by something that is itself also moving
The First Way logically concludes in an unmoved mover but does not say we inspect the unmoved mover. We can inspect the effects of the unmoved mover and that is what the first part is talking about. Do you see my point now?
Right now, we are discussing what you claim is an equivalent of the First Way, but one that denies an unmoved mover would exist. I think that qualifies as discussing the First Way.
Even if I was wrong about how I interpreted the statement (which I claim I am not) it is irrelevant to the validity, soundness or truth of the First Way. It's a red herring.
bmiller said...
"We can inspect the effects of the unmoved mover and that is what the first part is talking about."
No, we can't, because it's not even clear what an unmoved mover would be, or could be. It's not something that has been demonstrated to possibly exist! It's a negative definition; it's just a concept of what something isn't.
What we inspect, everything we know of so far, are moving things, and the First Way tries to conclude that there's something not moving that is moving them. Why? The justification is: because otherwise they wouldn't move. But that's true if, and only if, moving things move because of an unmoved mover (whatever that would be). It's circular. So obviously so...
bmiller said...
In other words, the First Way starts out saying that only things which move can move other things?
No, that is not what the First Way starts out saying, nor is it what the second bullet said.
Thank you for clearing up that you don't think this is what first way says. However, that is very close to what the second bullet point stated.
In reality, every moving thing we inspect is moved by something that is itself also moving
The First Way logically concludes in an unmoved mover but does not say we inspect the unmoved mover.
Nor does this bullet point. Instead, it refers to "every moving thing we inspect", which is the subject of the sentence. The subject does not refer to non-moving things.
We can inspect the effects of the unmoved mover and that is what the first part is talking about. Do you see my point now?
Honestly, I see you are having a little trouble with a slightly complicated English sentence.
Even if I was wrong about how I interpreted the statement (which I claim I am not) it is irrelevant to the validity, soundness or truth of the First Way. It's a red herring.
I agree we don't need to discuss the bullet point anymore.
One Brow,
It seems that you only read the first section of VI-4. It has 10 chapters.
Unfortunately, the early error voids the rest.
Lines are continuous, and are composed of indivisible points.
This may be an interesting side topic to discuss later, but I'm not sure how you think it relates to the First Way.
It's part of the argument Aquinas uses to prove motion can not be composed of indivisible parts, when in fact it is.
No it's not.
All you have to do is look at a muscle move, and see it all moves together.
I'm not deviating from the text. The animal in question changes location by means of moving legs.
And the muscle that moves the legs also moves itself primarily.
As far as I can tell, you are telling me that the legs of an animal walk by themselves with no parts moving other parts.
Not the leg as a whole, the muscle in the leg.
One Brow,
Unfortunately, the early error voids the rest.
Lines are continuous, and are composed of indivisible points.
So your argument is that time is not a continuum, but is composed of "instants"?
All you have to do is look at a muscle move, and see it all moves together.
No it doesn't.
So your argument is that time is not a continuum, but is composed of "instants"?
My argument is that it is both.
No it doesn't.
Can you provide any reason to believe this despite appearances?
One Brow,
My argument is that it is both.
If time consists of indivisible *instants* then no change in time is occurring in that *instant*. If time was changing during that *instant* then the *instant* could be further divided. So each *instant* of time is frozen and changeless. If this is so, then things that appear to be moving, like an arrow shot from a bow, must actually not be moving at that *instant*, nor at the next, nor at the next. Since it is not moving at any *instant*, it is not moving. This is Zeno's paradox.
Now your definition:
Lines are continuous, and are composed of indivisible points.
Is not Euclid's definition.
The description of a point, “that which has no part,” indicates that Euclid will be treating a point as having no width, length, or breadth, but as an indivisible location."
This is how Euclidian geometry is taught:
A point is a location and has no dimensions
So while a line has 1 dimension and that dimension can have a location identified by a number of points, they are fundamentally different things. A thing having extension in space (a line) and a thing that is a label for a location (a point).
And David Hilbert agrees that points, and lines are different primitive geometric terms, none of them *composed* of the other:
Hilbert's axion system contains 3 primitive terms, a point, a line and a plane.
One Brow,
Can you provide any reason to believe this despite appearances?
They simply don't appear to do what you say.
Thank you all for participating.
The discussion has now gone sideways into disagreements about mathematical systems rather than phyical systems as well as disagreements about whether muscles move themselves. I'm sure we've lost most everyone now.
I am pleased that we got at least to the point where people realize that the First Way starts with an observation of a thing moving in real-time, with a finite number of moving movers in a finite time and most people can agree that things don't move themselves. I wish we could have discussed more of the the relatively short chapter of the SCG linked at the beginning but I'm still satisfied.
At 300+ comments, this is 10X better than last time. I aim for 30 comments next time.
Thanks to you too bmiller!
It was incredibly funny to see you fail so hard on such a simple topic. One day, perhaps you'll get interested in 20th century physics instead or, even more unlikely, perhaps you'll understand your reasoning error on that 1 specific argumentation line.
Almost forgot to add... I kind of felt bad at times for laughing at your face like that, because you thought it was serious, and you seem to be actually trying to understand something you don't. But at the same time, you've been a jerk on so many occasions that I can't help but be amused and move on, without regrets, except for wasting my time with this form of entertainment.
As a summary, here's the video that come to mind when reading a lot of your writings bmiller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
bmiller said...
If time consists of indivisible *instants* then no change in time is occurring in that *instant*. If time was changing during that *instant* then the *instant* could be further divided. So each *instant* of time is frozen and changeless. If this is so, then things that appear to be moving, like an arrow shot from a bow, must actually not be moving at that *instant*, nor at the next, nor at the next. Since it is not moving at any *instant*, it is not moving. This is Zeno's paradox.
Was that suppose to rebut my position? Unlike Zeno, we have access to tools like derivatives and integrals, and can easily and simply express the notion of sum up the difference between instants that don't appear in any instant. The very definition of motion requires a comparison of position between two different instants.
Lines are continuous, and are composed of indivisible points.
Is not Euclid's definition.
No, but it is a consequence of his axioms and the ability to measure the length of a line segment.
I taught Euclidean Geometry for years. I can go on for pages about it. Don't try to hornswaggle me with it.
And David Hilbert agrees that points, and lines are different primitive geometric terms, none of them *composed* of the other:
Hilbert's axion system contains 3 primitive terms, a point, a line and a plane.
That lines are comprised of points is a consequence of I.1, I.3, II.1, II.2, II.4, and III.1.
They simply don't appear to do what you say.
Muscles contract, without any exterior substance at rest making them contract, and do so primarily. Denial get you nowhere.
The discussion has now gone sideways into disagreements about mathematical systems rather than phyical systems as well as disagreements about whether muscles move themselves. I'm sure we've lost most everyone now.
You only agreed to discuss with me. I'm not lost.
We talked about the indivisibles and continua because it is a issue the First Way relies upon. We discussed muscles moving themselves primarily because this First Way says this can't happen. These are not tangents, they are 1) an example that the First Way has a false condition as an antecedent, and 2) a counter-example to the First Way. In particular, the example of the muscle was a part of the discussion of the short chapter of SCG you wished we had discussed more.
Well, perhaps one day you will try again.
Oh yes I almost forgot.
As a bonus, we got a troll to confess! So there's no need to wonder whether he's just ignorant or a troll. He's both.
Haha, wrong even about that... told you it's not trolling when I'm telling you about it!
One Brow,
Btw, looks like I missed a part of my comment recently, where I had started with your name like that. And it's even more fitting now... just wanted to mention that I hope you also find this entertaining as this is really what it is. There was nothing to learn from bmiller nor the First Way in general here.
Philosophical discussions can be fascinating but this wasn't that at all. It all started because of bmiller poking me, insulting me, and pretending I'm afraid to have a serious discussion... you jumped in saying you were willing to so, again, I hope you had fun with this. Your contributions were always on point. We must disagree on many things, like everyone else, but not here!
One Brow,
Was that suppose to rebut my position? Unlike Zeno, we have access to tools like derivatives and integrals, and can easily and simply express the notion of sum up the difference between instants that don't appear in any instant. The very definition of motion requires a comparison of position between two different instants.
If time consists of *instants* there is no "difference between instants that don't appear in any instant." there are only *instants*. At any *instant* there is no change in time since if there was, there would be a beginning and and end meaning it was indeed not indivisible.
No, but it is a consequence of his axioms and the ability to measure the length of a line segment.
Once you know the location of the endpoints sure you can measure the line, but it doesn't mean the line is composed of the locations it contains. Just because my car is parked on a square grid doesn't mean my car is composed of grid locations.
That lines are comprised of points is a consequence of I.1, I.3, II.1, II.2, II.4, and III.1.
No. Not only does it not make sense that one primitive is composed of another, the terms used are "contains" or "lies upon" not "composed of" or "comprised of".
One Brow,
Muscles contract, without any exterior substance at rest making them contract, and do so primarily. Denial get you nowhere.
It seems to me that you are the only one who thinks that muscles move themselves. Most people don't. They also don't think other inanimate things move themselves. So I'm in the majority, not in denial. I'm also not interested in *getting anywhere* if that means convincing you of anything.
Most people believe that muscles are part of an animate being and are moved as part of that animate being's intention of moving that limb, whether to run from a predator or run to a food source or what-not.
You don't seem particularly interested in explaining your assertion and so I'm not particularly interested in doing anything other than making a counter-assertion.
bmiller said...
It seems to me that you are the only one who thinks that muscles move themselves.
Based on your poll of two people?
Muscles move by reason of themselves (that is, by what is internal to the muscle) and not by reason of a part of themselves (there is no stationary part of a muscle that moves a non-stationary part of a muscle), so muscles move primarily, by the definition you want to use.
Most people believe that muscles are part of an animate being and are moved as part of that animate being's intention of moving that limb, whether to run from a predator or run to a food source or what-not.
You said you wanted to discuss the definition as presented in the short section of SCG. Where in this section of SCG is intention to move discussed as an essential part of something being moved primarily? Is this an admission that the section you said you wanted to discuss is insufficient in and of itself?
You don't seem particularly interested in explaining your assertion...
How much more explanation is needed? Can you provide a reason to claim that there is some stationary part of a muscle when the muscle contracts? Where is it, and how does it differ from other muscle tissue?
One Brow,
You said you wanted to discuss the definition as presented in the short section of SCG. Where in this section of SCG is intention to move discussed as an essential part of something being moved primarily? Is this an admission that the section you said you wanted to discuss is insufficient in and of itself?
I mentioned it was a pity you didn't read the entire chapter. There are 35 paragraphs in the chapter, 32 of which pertain to the First Way. Why don't you read all of them?
How much more explanation is needed? Can you provide a reason to claim that there is some stationary part of a muscle when the muscle contracts? Where is it, and how does it differ from other muscle tissue?
Muscles are attached to bone and move due to impulses from the nervous system of the animal. The nervous system sends the impulses because the animal is responding to an external stimulus. So, muscles are moved by nerves which are moved by the animal which is moved by it's nature which is natural movement for the animal.
Muscles in a corpse do not move, neither do muscles removed from a body. Muscles do not move themselves at all much less primarily.
bmiller said:
"which is moved by it's [sic] nature"
Forgetting the typo, that's not meaningful in a physical sense. There's a jump in logic, switching from literal to conceptual.
"Muscles do not move themselves at all much less primarily."
Here's the assumption of the conclusion again. Moving things are all moved by the unmoved mover, primarily.
Therefore, the example du jour shows that nothing presented here couldn't move without a prime mover.
We do have 1 thing in common though. Not being able to resist responding to comments.
30 more?
bmiller said...
You said you wanted to discuss the definition as presented in the short section of SCG. Where in this section of SCG is intention to move discussed as an essential part of something being moved primarily? Is this an admission that the section you said you wanted to discuss is insufficient in and of itself?
I mentioned it was a pity you didn't read the entire chapter. There are 35 paragraphs in the chapter, 32 of which pertain to the First Way. Why don't you read all of them?
Why would I read the entire chapter when there are several flaws in the first few paragraphs? Even if the last 25 paragraphs were perfectly argued and valid (doubtful considering Aquinas' track record so far), there conclusions are voided by their dependence on the errors in the beginning. If you think you can rescue Aquinas' position from Aquinas' text, do so. It's not my job to do your homework.
How much more explanation is needed? Can you provide a reason to claim that there is some stationary part of a muscle when the muscle contracts? Where is it, and how does it differ from other muscle tissue?
Muscles are attached to bone and move due to impulses from the nervous system of the animal. The nervous system sends the impulses because the animal is responding to an external stimulus. So, muscles are moved by nerves which are moved by the animal which is moved by it's nature which is natural movement for the animal.
So? The definition of moving primarily was moving by reason of themselves and not a part of themselves; nothing about external stimuli was mentioned. Muscles contract by reason of themselves, not by reason of some part of a muscle moving some other part of a muscle; the external stimuli from the nerves don't rescue this argument.
Muscles in a corpse do not move, neither do muscles removed from a body. Muscles do not move themselves at all much less primarily.
https://www.calebwilde.com/2014/11/10-things-bodies-can-do-after-death/
#8 is muscle movement.
One Brow,
So? The definition of moving primarily was moving by reason of themselves and not a part of themselves; nothing about external stimuli was mentioned.
Things that are being moved by something else are by definition not moved by themselves.
bmiller said...
So? The definition of moving primarily was moving by reason of themselves and not a part of themselves; nothing about external stimuli was mentioned.
Things that are being moved by something else are by definition not moved by themselves.
So? Are you saying nerves physically move muscles? If not, how is this relevant?
One Brow,
So? Are you saying nerves physically move muscles? If not, how is this relevant?
I have to ask now. Are you pulling my leg? [pun intended :-)]
Grade school kids are taught that nerves cause muscle movement.
bmiller said...
One Brow,
So? Are you saying nerves physically move muscles? If not, how is this relevant?
Grade school kids are taught that nerves cause muscle movement.
Same questions. Are you saying nerves physically move muscles? If not, how is this relevant? Nerves tell the muscles to move, but the muscles move themselves primarily, according to the Aquinas definition in the SCG text.
One Brow,
Muscles do not move without stimuli from nerves. Therefore muscles do not move themselves at all.
This is what we learned in elementary school:
nerves cause muscle movement.
What do you dispute about this?
Muscles do not move without stimuli from nerves.
Agreed, most of the time (although, as seen at the link above, occasionally a muscle will move without being stimulated by a nerve).
Therefore muscles do not move themselves at all.
Disagree. Upon receiving the stimulus from nerves, muscles move themselves primarily, according to the definition provided by Aquinas in the SCG section you linked. The nerve does not move the muscle.
This is what we learned in elementary school: nerves cause muscle movement.
Nerves do stimulate muscles, although as quoted above, we see muscle movement in corpses even after the nerves no longer stimulate them.
What do you dispute about this?
I dispute that nerves move muscles. Nerves only stimulate muscles. A muscle moves itself primarily.
One Brow,
Can muscles start their own movement and stop their own movement?
This is how muscles move. Electrical and chemical reactions causing the fibers to contract.
In a corpse, part of the decomposition process allows the release of calcium, which can still trigger the muscle fibers to contract.
Is either of those the muscle "moving itself"? If yes, then I suppose flowing water also moves itself.
bmiller said...
Can muscles start their own movement and stop their own movement?
What does that have to do with the First Way as described in the section of SCG that you quoted? Can you lift out the part where Aquinas refers to something starting and stopping its own movement? Or, are you on to a different formulation of the First Way, and if so, could you link to that formulation?
Legion of Logic said...
Is either of those the muscle "moving itself"? If yes, then I suppose flowing water also moves itself.
Here's the quote from SCG we are discussing:
The first way is as follows. If something moves itself, it must have within itself the principle of its own motion; otherwise, it is clearly moved by another. Furthermore, it must be primarily moved. This means that it must be moved by reason of itself, and not by reason of a part of itself, as happens when an animal is moved by the motion of its foot. For, in this sense, a whole would not be moved by itself, but a part, and one part would be moved by another. It is also necessary that a self-moving being be divisible and have parts, since, as it is proved in the Physics [VI, 4], whatever is moved is divisible.
In the decaying muscle that contracts, it has within itself the principle of its own motion (the calcium being released). It is being moved by reason of itself, and not a part of itself (aka primarily), as there is no metaphorical equivalent to the foot moving the rest of the animal. This provides a counter-example to the First Way as described in this passage.
One Brow,
What does that have to do with the First Way as described in the section of SCG that you quoted?
It's actually the first criteria that is used to determine if something moves itself:
The first way is as follows. If something moves itself, it must have within itself the principle of its own motion;
If something cannot start or stop it's own motion it is not moving itself. Therefore there is no question of whether it moves itself primarily or not since it obviously does not move itself in the first place.
This is pretty much common sense and simple insights like this is why Aristotle is known as the "common sense philosopher".
A car can't start or stop itself yet it's still called an automobile!
HA!
When self-driving cars come online I wonder who will go to jail when they start running us down? :-)
It's actually the first criteria that is used to determine if something moves itself:
The first way is as follows. If something moves itself, it must have within itself the principle of its own motion;
If something cannot start or stop it's own motion it is not moving itself. Therefore there is no question of whether it moves itself primarily or not since it obviously does not move itself in the first place.
This is pretty much common sense and simple insights like this is why Aristotle is known as the "common sense philosopher".
Yet, the "common sense philosopher" did not define nor require starting or stopping one's own motion in his definition of moving primarily, he was very clear that moving primarily meant moving yourself as a whole, as opposed to one part moving another part. By changing the definition, you are expanding beyond what this section of SCG is discussing.
Now, if you want to discuss another formulation of the First Way, I'm good with that. However, I would ask you to please specify or link to the entire proof; I don't wnat to discuss vapor-proofs. On the other hand, if you want to discuss this proof in SCG, then don't add to the definitions Aquinas provides.
Muscles have within themselves the principle of their own motion, as we know by the fact that muscles can move even after the person is dead.
One Brow,
Yet, the "common sense philosopher" did not define nor require starting or stopping one's own motion in his definition of moving primarily, he was very clear that moving primarily meant moving yourself as a whole, as opposed to one part moving another part. By changing the definition, you are expanding beyond what this section of SCG is discussing.
For something to move itself at all entails that it is capable of starting itself in motion, keeping itself in motion and stopping itself from moving. If a thing is not capable of doing these things then it is not moving itself period. So, since the thing in question obviously lacks the principle of motion within itself at all, it is obviously not moving itself *primarily*.
Now if you choose to define your terms differently from Aquinas and aim your argument at a position that Aquinas did not hold, then that would be an example of the straw man fallacy.
If you are interested in what Aquinas did hold, you can look at his Commentaries on Aristotle. He did not necessarily agree with him on everything, but there's not doubt on this question.
Physics Book VII examines movers and things moved
This explicitly addresses your point (although it is mentioned in other places):
In the second place that which is in motion without being moved by anything does not necessarily cease from its motion because something else is at rest, but a thing must be moved by something if the fact of something else having ceased from its motion causes it to be at rest.
So if the nervous system ceases to provide stimuli to the muscle group, the muscles will also cease to move. Muscles do not move themselves.
It might also be a good time to mention that Aquinas provides multiple lines of argument in the linked Section 13, so even if one argument is hard to understand there are others that may be easier.
bmiller said...
For something to move itself at all entails that it is capable of starting itself in motion, keeping itself in motion and stopping itself from moving. If a thing is not capable of doing these things then it is not moving itself period. So, since the thing in question obviously lacks the principle of motion within itself at all, it is obviously not moving itself *primarily*.
Usually, but not always, after receiving a stimulus, muscles release calcium inside the muscle, triggering their own movement. They contract with no assistance from any outside source. Once the contraction is over, they stop moving, with nothing to have stopped them but the end of the contraction. So, even those this is not in Aquinas' definition of primarily, and you are just adding on to what is not present in the text, you have still failed.
This is why philosophers like Feser need to bring in concepts like essentially ordered series. Aquinas ideas, as written, don't work.
Now if you choose to define your terms differently from Aquinas and aim your argument at a position that Aquinas did not hold, then that would be an example of the straw man fallacy.
If I were to do that, then it would be strawmanning. However, I am not doing that. I am staying very carefully to the definition Aquinas gives. You have strayed from the definition by adding in "starting" and "stopping".
If you are interested in what Aquinas did hold, you can look at his Commentaries on Aristotle. He did not necessarily agree with him on everything, but there's not doubt on this question.
Physics Book VII examines movers and things moved
It takes a very bad proof from Aristotle and swallows it whole:
Thus, if this is accepted, everything that is in motion must be moved by something. For AB, which has been taken to represent that which is in motion, must be divisible since everything that is in motion is divisible. Let it be divided, then, at G. Now if GB is not in motion, then AB will not be in motion: for if it is, it is clear that AG would be in motion while BG is at rest, and thus AB cannot be in motion essentially and primarily. But ex hypothesi AB is in motion essentially and primarily. Therefore if GB is not in motion AB will be at rest. But we have agreed that that which is at rest if something else is not in motion must be moved by something. Consequently, everything that is in motion must be moved by something: for that which is in motion will always be divisible, and if a part of it is not in motion the whole must be at rest.
The part in italics should read: consequently, GB is in motion.. That's a fairly elementary logical error.
That doesn't even get into how the notion of "everything in motion must be divisible" is wrong.
This explicitly addresses your point (although it is mentioned in other places):
In the second place that which is in motion without being moved by anything does not necessarily cease from its motion because something else is at rest, but a thing must be moved by something if the fact of something else having ceased from its motion causes it to be at rest.
Yes, by accepting a bad argument. Another failure on the part of Aquinas.
So if the nervous system ceases to provide stimuli to the muscle group, the muscles will also cease to move. Muscles do not move themselves.
Repeating this point does not change the actual observation from funeral home directors that, on rare occasion, muscles move even after the nerve stimulation is no longer present.
It might also be a good time to mention that Aquinas provides multiple lines of argument in the linked Section 13, so even if one argument is hard to understand there are others that may be easier.
I'm not having any problems understanding the arguments. They are just wrong.
Do you think Aquinas was inspired in some way to create perfect argumentation?
One Brow,
Usually, but not always, after receiving a stimulus, muscles release calcium inside the muscle, triggering their own movement. They contract with no assistance from any outside source. Once the contraction is over, they stop moving, with nothing to have stopped them but the end of the contraction. So, even those this is not in Aquinas' definition of primarily, and you are just adding on to what is not present in the text, you have still failed.
In your example, the muscles were compelled to move by the nerves and stay in contraction until the stimuli are removed. They did not start the movement, nor sustain the movement, nor decide when to end the movement (if you want to call a sustained contraction a movement).
But yes, you're right that Aquinas did not supply a tight definition of what it means for a thing to be said to move itself in the linked SCG. That's why I supplied the quote you asked for from his Commentary.
Here's another:
885. He proposes therefore first (676) that everything that is being moved is necessarily being moved by some other. In some cases this is indeed evident, for there are some things which do not possess in themselves the principle of their motion; rather the principle of their motion is from without, as in things which are being moved by compulsion.
Nerves compel muscles to move. Therefore muscles do not move themselves.
If I were to do that, then it would be strawmanning. However, I am not doing that. I am staying very carefully to the definition Aquinas gives. You have strayed from the definition by adding in "starting" and "stopping".
Good. Your earlier comment looked like you were conflating what it meant for something to move itself with primary movement. But of course I have not added anything to a definition of what it means for something to move itself. I've merely explained it.
Too many comments for one post, so I will continue on a separate post.
One Brow,
The part in italics should read: consequently, GB is in motion.. That's a fairly elementary logical error.
That doesn't even get into how the notion of "everything in motion must be divisible" is wrong.
Not sure what you mean about the logic. The part about "everything in motion must be divisible" was explained in an earlier section, so that premise is not explained here.
The part I quoted earlier is the other key premise:
In the second place that which is in motion without being moved by anything does not necessarily cease from its motion because something else is at rest, but a thing must be moved by something if the fact of something else having ceased from its motion causes it to be at rest.
Repeating this point does not change the actual observation from funeral home directors that, on rare occasion, muscles move even after the nerve stimulation is no longer present.
It's an interesting story, but since:
Very little to no pathophysiological or scientific basis exists to support the validity of cadaveric spasms. I'd rather not discuss something that may not actually happen.
I'm not having any problems understanding the arguments. They are just wrong.
Not from what we've discussed so far.
Do you think Aquinas was inspired in some way to create perfect argumentation?
Nope. He could be wrong. I just haven't seen anyone understand this argument and refute it.
bmiller said:
"Nope. He could be wrong. I just haven't seen anyone understand this argument and refute it. "
LOL. Sorry, couldn't resist... as if there was anything complicated here.
The only thing that's "complicated" is showing all the tiny mistakes and how they make the overall picture fail, because it's really not that obvious if one just reads the text quickly.
I just noticed that a lot of the actual commentary is not present in the Latin/English version I've been linking to.
The English only version has more of Aquinas's commentary.
These comments on muscles moving themselves (or not) reminded me of lab grown heart muscles that actually pulse without much (any?) external help. I can't quite find the details unfortunately... the closest I got to wast these 2 articles but it doesn't talk about how the beating actually occurs, and it's the same tests from end of 2018; what I heard of was older.
https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-grow-beating-human-heart-tissue-stem-cells-1207100
https://futurism.com/heart-tissue-engineered-beats
Btw... on a funnier note:
Ding ding ding! The posts above crossed the 30th mark since bmiller said he would stop now as this is getting too long, and aim for 30 posts next time!
Ah found something older actually, still not clear how/why it moves:
https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/scientists-engineer-lab-grown-heart-tissue-beats-its-own
And now, in any case, the point is that there is not going to be an example of something that moves itself, because nothing does except the prime mover...
bmiller said...
In your example, the muscles were compelled to move by the nerves and stay in contraction until the stimuli are removed. They did not start the movement, nor sustain the movement, nor decide when to end the movement (if you want to call a sustained contraction a movement).
But yes, you're right that Aquinas did not supply a tight definition of what it means for a thing to be said to move itself in the linked SCG. That's why I supplied the quote you asked for from his Commentary.
So, now we are going beyond the linked portion of SCG. OK. How about, instead of adding on to the conditions piece by piece whenever you find out your current set of pieces don't work, you offer the complete, full, and comprehensive of what it means to move something primarily. Until I have a complete definition, I don't see the point in continuing to discuss examples or potential counter-examples.
But of course I have not added anything to a definition of what it means for something to move itself. I've merely explained it.
You added to the section of SCG you said you wanted to discuss. I would like a complete definition, please.
Not sure what you mean about the logic.
The short form: Aristototle said 'Assume A is true. If B were true, then B would imply C. However, we know C is not true. Therefore A is not true'. The correct next step would be 'B is not true when A is true'.
The part about "everything in motion must be divisible" was explained in an earlier section, so that premise is not explained here.
Photons are not divisible. Photons move. There are indivisible things that move. It's just wrong.
The part I quoted earlier is the other key premise:
In the second place that which is in motion without being moved by anything does not necessarily cease from its motion because something else is at rest, but a thing must be moved by something if the fact of something else having ceased from its motion causes it to be at rest.
So, 'if A and B are both moving, and A is not pushing B, then when A stops moving, it might not be true the B stops moving'. No objections there.
It's an interesting story, but since:
Very little to no pathophysiological or scientific basis exists to support the validity of cadaveric spasms. I'd rather not discuss something that may not actually happen.
Which means it's rare and we are not sure of the cause, nothing more.
Nope. He could be wrong. I just haven't seen anyone understand this argument and refute it.
However, you agree it could be possible to understand his argument and refute it? Perhaps you don't understand Aquinas' argument, and so don't understand the refutations.
One Brow,
So, now we are going beyond the linked portion of SCG. OK. How about, instead of adding on to the conditions piece by piece whenever you find out your current set of pieces don't work, you offer the complete, full, and comprehensive of what it means to move something primarily. Until I have a complete definition, I don't see the point in continuing to discuss examples or potential counter-examples.
This is a discussion of the First Way. All of the background cannot be spelled out in a single section of the SCG since it would mean that section would have to include all of the various writings Aquinas refers to. I can provide you the background if you're interested in a particular definition, but if you're not interested in what Aquinas means, then of course I agree you are probably better off not trying to provide counter examples since they are likely not to apply.
I've quoted 2 sections that address your concern and explained what they mean. It's been a while since I've gone through Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics but it doesn't read the way modern texts do, so that's why it's better to read Aquinas's Commentary. Let me check to see if I can find all the places he discusses what it means to be self-moving, but as you've seen, he concludes that things that are not obviously moved by something else, actually are under investigation.
Now I have to apologize to you that it took me so long to understand what you were trying to communicate. It just didn't dawn on me that you actually think things move themselves. I wondered how widespread that belief was, but when I googled "things that move themselves" I didn't come up with anything I thought you would endorse. Do you have a link to people who hold that philosophical belief beside yourself?
One Brow,
The short form: Aristototle said 'Assume A is true. If B were true, then B would imply C. However, we know C is not true. Therefore A is not true'. The correct next step would be 'B is not true when A is true'.
I think your analysis misses the point.
A: Everything that moves is divisible (made of parts).
B: For a thing to move itself it cannot stop because something else stops.
C: To move primarily means movement of the whole is not caused by the movement of the parts (animals do not qualify since they are moved by their parts)
But what if we have something that we suspect is a candidate that moves all it's parts and the whole as essentially and primarily?(C)
Since it is divisible we can mentally divide it in 2. (Due to A)
If part 1 moves part 2 moves and the whole moves.(C confirmed for this case)
But what if part 1 stops?
Does part 2 also stop?
If we say yes, then we have case (B) and so the whole is not moving itself at all but depends on a part.
If we say no, then the whole is not in motion (essentially and primarily since all parts do not move with the whole.)
The argument ends with 2 horns of a dilemma both of which conclude that nothing moves itself.
Photons are not divisible. Photons move. There are indivisible things that move. It's just wrong.
First, photons do not move themselves so they are outside of the discussion of things moving themselves.
Second, if photons actually do occupy space, they are extended in space and so have what we may consider endpoints. Anything with endpoints can be divided in half....segment AC can be divided at point B giving us 2 segments AB and BC. Of course the exact location of quantum sized particles can only be known as a probability of being in a location due to the uncertainty principle so exact location and movement cannot both be known at once.
However, you agree it could be possible to understand his argument and refute it? Perhaps you don't understand Aquinas' argument, and so don't understand the refutations.
Of course I can be wrong. You can be wrong. Aquinas can be wrong. That's what we're discussing after all.
Above should be:
The argument ends with 2 horns of a dilemma both of which conclude that nothing moves itself (essentially and primarily).
One Brow,
I have to take a trip for the next couple days so it's likely that I won't be able to respond.
I still haven't found any tight definition for "moving itself" like there is for motion, but if you search Book VII and VIII using the term "itself" you will find several passages that refer to things needing to be able to control their own motion as a condition of being in consideration for moving itself. Heavy objects for instance tend to go down but if they could control their own motion, then they should be able to go up also. Ditto for light objects and so on.
Blogger bmiller said...
The argument ends with 2 horns of a dilemma both of which conclude that nothing moves itself (essentially and primarily).
Then it never addresses the second horn.
bmiller said...
I have to take a trip for the next couple days so it's likely that I won't be able to respond.
I don't like going beyond 400 comments in a thread anyhow.
I still haven't found any tight definition for "moving itself" like there is for motion, but if you search Book VII and VIII using the term "itself" you will find several passages that refer to things needing to be able to control their own motion as a condition of being in consideration for moving itself. Heavy objects for instance tend to go down but if they could control their own motion, then they should be able to go up also. Ditto for light objects and so on.
If I try to assemble the proper definition, I am sure you will think I messed something up. So, take your time, put together a correct definition for moving primarily,and we can continue this in another thread in a week, a month, a year, whenever.
One Brow,
Then it never addresses the second horn.
See the answer to the objection that ends with the example "If a man is an ass then he is irrational."
It is not a mistake but an intentional conditional argument.
One Brow,
OK, maybe we can engage again in the future. But I'm not going to try to provide a definition that will prevent all disagreements from you because that would be impossible. What we can do is inspect the argument and background for it's soundness.
I'll probably add a few comments regarding distinctions among continuous, congruent and successive that were not covered.
bmiller said:
"I'm not going to try to provide a definition that will prevent all disagreements from you because that would be impossible."
That's actually a great summary!
i.e. the argument cannot even really start, because the terms are not well defined...
Then, the proponents will claim things like:
- Don't think too much about it; just accept these premises. See the argument works!
- Take this analogy, it's therefore obvious that you need a prime mover, for everything.
- It doesn't mater what modern Physics tell us about how objects actually move, just talking about movement from a philosophical's perspective is enough, and leads to insights about the nature of the entire freaking universe.
Side note, it's funny how bmiller keeps making that mistake:
"...inspect the argument and background for it's soundness."
Martin was doing that mistake sometimes too for some reason; I guess a lot of people do, or..
bmiller said...
It is not a mistake but an intentional conditional argument.
Meaning it is not a proof? OK.
OK, maybe we can engage again in the future. But I'm not going to try to provide a definition that will prevent all disagreements from you because that would be impossible. What we can do is inspect the argument and background for it's soundness.
If you can't provide a complete definition for what primary movement is, then there is nothing to disagree over, and no proof for the First Way (which as far as I can tell depends upon this definition, at least for you).
I'll probably add a few comments regarding distinctions among continuous, congruent and successive that were not covered.
If you like.
One Brow,
Meaning it is not a proof? OK.
My point was that it was not a mistake in logic. Don't know why you've introduced a new term.
If you can't provide a complete definition for what primary movement is
Oh, it was provided. What I can't do is provide a definition that will prevent all disagreements from you because that would be impossible.
it must have within itself the principle of its own motion. Somehow your own personal definition of principle of its own motion meant has no control of its own motion. Like I said, I'm not a mind reader (and I especially cannot read your mind), so the only way, with you, would be for you to actually read the background and context. It seems you're not that interested.
I understand why you've given up.
bmiller said...
My point was that it was not a mistake in logic. Don't know why you've introduced a new term.
Drawing a conclusion that AB is not moving, when all you have proven is that "'AB is moving' implies 'GB is moving'", is a mistake in logic. If the goal only to prove the conditional, as you said above, they you have never disproved 'AB is moving'.
If you can't provide a complete definition for what primary movement is...
Oh, it was provided.
To quote you: I still haven't found any tight definition for "moving itself" like there is for motion,...
When you find that tight definition, we can look at it.
What I can't do is provide a definition that will prevent all disagreements from you because that would be impossible.
What I see no point in doing is discussing a the existence of a phenomenon, when the definition for that phenomenon is subject to clarification/change over the course of the discussion. If we are talking about two different things, we aren't even disagreeing.
it must have within itself the principle of its own motion.
Somehow your own personal definition of principle of its own motion meant has no control of its own motion.
The notion of "control" was not part of the references passage in SCG.
Like I said, I'm not a mind reader (and I especially cannot read your mind), so the only way, with you, would be for you to actually read the background and context. It seems you're not that interested.
I'm not interested in reading some more background and context, discussing it in another dozen comments, and then finding out that the amended definition was still missing something else from some other part of Aquinas' work. The First Way is your position, not mine, and it's on you to provide definitions for its terms, not I.
So much of Aquinas' work reflects things that are wrong in reality. If you think the First Way is different, then I would love to read about it why you think so.
I understand why you've given up.
As I said, it's like nailing Jello to a wall.
"If you can't provide a complete definition for what primary movement is..."
It's worse than that; we know exactly what the argument attempts to define and why it fails.
That's why I find it amusing (sorry, not sorry) to keep asking bmiller to clarify and explain because, for some reason, he isn't able to see the issues!
This thread went further and in more details than I have ever seen, but it made things worse. It literally went to something as absurd as 'we see 2 people pushing a cart, therefore a prime mover is causing their movement'... it couldn't be more obvious that this only makes sense in the mind of someone who accepts the conclusion, blindly. There must be a prime mover to cause movement, otherwise nothing move. We see movement, therefore there's a prime mover. You can talk about anything, anytime, with any analogies, and it's always the same circularity being exposed.
bmiller said:
I understand why you've given up.
He doesn't understand. That's obviously a lie; a self-serving lie from someone who couldn't help but go back to poking... his true colors showed again.
One Brow,
Drawing a conclusion that AB is not moving, when all you have proven is that "'AB is moving' implies 'GB is moving'", is a mistake in logic. If the goal only to prove the conditional, as you said above, they you have never disproved 'AB is moving'.
Therefore AB is not being moved primarily and per se, as we originally assumed. Therefore while BC is at rest, the entire AB must be at rest. Thus, what is being moved ceases to be moved upon the occasion of something else resting. But above we held that if something rests and ceases to be moved on the occasion of another’s resting, it is being moved by that other. Therefore, AB is being moved by some other.
It simply concludes that the original assumption about AB being in motion primarily and per say was wrong.
To quote you: I still haven't found any tight definition for "moving itself" like there is for motion,...
When you find that tight definition, we can look at it.
I'd decided not to look for it anymore since it's actually there in multiple places:
If something moves itself, it must have within itself the principle of its own motion; otherwise, it is clearly moved by another. Furthermore, it must be primarily moved. This means that it must be moved by reason of itself, and not by reason of a part of itself, as happens when an animal is moved by the motion of its foot.
You said:
I'm not having any problems understanding the arguments. They are just wrong.
But then:
I'm not interested in reading some more background and context, discussing it in another dozen comments, and then finding out that the amended definition was still missing something else from some other part of Aquinas' work...
As I said, it's like nailing Jello to a wall.
So it appears to me that you are having problems understanding the arguments. You won't be able to understand the arguments without reading the background and context which I encouraged you to do, yet you still refuse to do so. The SCG references Physics and I've provided links to both. No Jello....it's been the same for centuries and numerous philosophers have studied it and understood it.
Now I find it funny that you're attempting to blame me for your own refusal to read the material, as if it's my fault that you made poor assumptions by not following my suggestions or that I'm making things up just to *foil* you. Good try, but it's not fooling anyone.
bmiller said:
"The SCG references Physics and I've provided links to both. No Jello....it's been the same for centuries and numerous philosophers have studied it and understood it."
...and rejected it.
Especially in light of what we now understand. Bmiller badically tries to make the point that it's either "understand and accept" or "reject because of misunderstanding/ignorance", forgetting the "understand and reject" position.
"Now I find it funny that you're attempting to blame me for your own refusal to read the material"
bmiller,
You accept the argument but cannot defend it when flaws are exposed, after reading just a few lines. Reading more, referring to more quotes, only adds more mistakes as this thread made evident.
Yet, when more of these errors are shown, you back up and claim it's drilling too much into the details, that examples of essentially ordered series, for instance, are not really useful after all. It's just about accepting simple premises. But they're wrong!
This is my last comment in this thread.
It simply concludes that the original assumption about AB being in motion primarily and per say was wrong.
Yes, I understand that was the conclusion. As I pointed out, that conclusion was unjustified, because they never proved that any part of AB had to be at rest.
I'd decided not to look for it anymore since it's actually there in multiple places:
If something moves itself, it must have within itself the principle of its own motion; otherwise, it is clearly moved by another. Furthermore, it must be primarily moved. This means that it must be moved by reason of itself, and not by reason of a part of itself, as happens when an animal is moved by the motion of its foot.
Then we can go back to the examples of muscles, who contain the principle of their own motion (the calcium ions) and do not move by reason of a part of the muscle moving some other part of the muscle, but rather by contracting as a whole.
So it appears to me that you are having problems understanding the arguments.
I'll clarify. I have not had a problem understanding the arguments you presented. However, when we examine them closely and find them unsound, you have a habit of saying that the argument was not complete. If I spend a couple of hours reading more of Aquinas, adding more to the definition, and then finding even more holes in it, I have every reason to believe you will still say there is more to the argument than I have gathered, and ask me to do another two hours of reading. I'm not interested in creating your argument for you. If the whole definition of something moving itself is above, I have already presented a counter-example, and in previous comments have presented many reasons why it is wrong; your response was that the definition was not truly complete.
You won't be able to understand the arguments without reading the background and context which I encouraged you to do, yet you still refuse to do so.
Every piece of background and context so far has more errors. The notion that something indivisible can't move: wrong. The ideas on indivisibles and continua: wrong. More I don't remember off the top of my head. Then, when I started to discuss this background, you claimed it was not relevant, and wanted to focus on the primary definition instead.
The SCG references Physics and I've provided links to both. No Jello....it's been the same for centuries and numerous philosophers have studied it and understood it.
It's not hard to understand. It's just wrong about much of what it concludes. It can be very easy to understand something that is wrong.
Now I find it funny that you're attempting to blame me for your own refusal to read the material, as if it's my fault that you made poor assumptions by not following my suggestions or that I'm making things up just to *foil* you. Good try, but it's not fooling anyone.
I don't blame you for anything except refusing to do your own work to defend your own position. You aren't fooling anyone either, except possibly yourself.
See you around the boards.
One Brow,
Have to respond in a couple posts:
Yes, I understand that was the conclusion. As I pointed out, that conclusion was unjustified, because they never proved that any part of AB had to be at rest.
That again misses Aristotle's point as explained by Aquinas in regard to Avicenna's unfounded argument (SCG 1:13-[7]).
Then we can go back to the examples of muscles, who contain the principle of their own motion (the calcium ions) and do not move by reason of a part of the muscle moving some other part of the muscle, but rather by contracting as a whole.
Again that is a straw-man of Aquinas's position which you claimed you were not doing. One only has to read chapter 13 (as I've suggested many times) to understand this. In particular, if nerves stimulate muscles they move, and if nerves stop stimulating muscles they cease to move. Therefore muscles don't move themselves.
From SCG:
But nothing that is at rest because something else is at rest is moved by itself; for that being whose rest follows upon the rest of another must have its motion follow upon the motion of another. It is thus not moved by itself. (SCG 1:13-[6])
For, indeed, the force of Aristotle’s argument lies in this: if something moves itself primarily and through itself, rather than through its parts, that it is moved cannot depend on another. (SCG 1:13-[7])
Muscles depend on something other than themselves to move. They do not move themselves at all. They do not move themselves primarily.
Even if there were a flaw in this particular argument (which there isn't) there are 2 more lines of argument that would need to be addressed to refute the argument: SCG 1:13-[8] and SCG 1:13-[9].
you have a habit of saying that the argument was not complete.
This is a false statement.
If the whole definition of something moving itself is above, I have already presented a counter-example, and in previous comments have presented many reasons why it is wrong; your response was that the definition was not truly complete.
No. To be clear, my position has been that you did not understand the definitions. I provided more and more explanation and quotes until you finally got it.
The notion that something indivisible can't move: wrong. The ideas on indivisibles and continua: wrong.
I gave you explicit arguments and evidence refuting these particular claims and you ignored them. Now all you have done is repeat assertions. Although I'm not sure how you think these would imply that inanimate things move themselves (and so it seems like a digression to me) you have not supplied evidence for your claims.
Here I'd like to point something out. Even if Aristotle was wrong about some particular points regarding physics, which he was was, it would be fallacious to conclude that he was wrong about his entire philosophical framework. This seems to be a common error.
One Brow,
It's not hard to understand. It's just wrong about much of what it concludes. It can be very easy to understand something that is wrong.
I agree that it's not hard to understand....as long as you read the entire section and don't stop after one paragraph.
I don't blame you for anything except refusing to do your own work to defend your own position. You aren't fooling anyone either, except possibly yourself.
Hey, I provided you all the source material necessary, explained it to you and answered all your questions. Now you're essentially blaming the teacher for your bad grade. You probably know how that feels.
One Brow said...
"Yes, I understand that was the conclusion. As I pointed out, that conclusion was unjustified, because..."
That's all that could be done really; there were several of these attempts at showing what is wrong with the argument. Too bad bmiller doesn't see this as the valid critique that this was!
Ah interesting, Google+ is official dead so it asked me to pick a display name... Anyway, finally:
bmiller said:
"Hey, I provided you all the source material necessary, explained it to you and answered all your questions. Now you're essentially blaming the teacher for your bad grade. You probably know how that feels."
That's really a good repeat of the cognitive dissonance that this thread has been about. It's irrational to think that more material helps when parts of what has been presented is already obviously wrong. It's irrational to think someone is "teaching" others when being shown what's wrong with their position. It's silly to not notice how simple it really is.
400th comment FTW!
Post a Comment