Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:50 AM
Philosophie der Antike
Verffentlichungen der
Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung
Herausgegeben von
Wolfgang Kullmann
in Verbindung mit
Jochen Althoff und Georg Whrle
Band 33
De Gruyter
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:50 AM
Aristotles Metaphysics
Lambda New Essays
edited by
Christoph Horn
De Gruyter
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:50 AM
ISBN 978-1-5015-1091-5
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0344-3
e-ISBN (ePUB) 978-1-5015-0334-4
ISSN 0943-5921
www.degruyter.com
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:50 AM
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
CHRISTOPH HORN
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ENRICO BERTI
The Program of Metaphysics Lambda (chapter 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
CHRISTOF RAPP
The Principles of Sensible Substance in Metaphysics 25 . . . . . . . . 87
MICHEL CRuBELLIER
What the Form Has to Be and What It Needs not Be
(Metaphysics, 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
MARCO ZINGANO
Individuals, Form, Movement: From Lambda to ZH . . . . . . . . . . . 139
STEPHAN HERZBERG
God as Pure Thinking. An Interpretation of Metaphysics 7,
1072b1426 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:50 AM
vi Contents
SILVIA FAZZO
Unmoved Mover as Pure Act or Unmoved Mover in Act? The Mystery
of a Subscript Iota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
ALBERTO ROSS
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
MARIA LIATSI
Aristotles Silence About the Prime Movers noesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
ISTVN BODNR
Cases of Celestial Teleology in Metaphysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
CHRISTOPH HORN
The Unity of the World-order According to Metaphysics 10 . . . . . 269
Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
1. Index locorum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
2. Index nominum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
3. Index rerum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:50 AM
List of Contributors
Silvia Fazzo (Universit della Calabria)s writings mainly deal with Aristotles
Metaphysics and the Aristotelian tradition, including philological reconstruc-
tion of Greek philosophical texts. See among her volumes Il libro Lambda
della Metafisica di Aristotele (2012), Commento al libro Lambda della Meta-
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
viii List of Contributors
Oliver Primavesi holds the chair of Greek (I) at the University of Munich
(LMU). His research has been focused mainly on Aristotle and the Presocrat-
ics, in particular on Empedocles. His books include Die Aristotelische Topik
(1996) and Empedokles: Physika I (2008). He has co-authored, with A. Mar-
tin, LEmpdocle de Strasbourg (1999) and with J. Mansfeld, Die Vorsokra-
tiker Griechisch / Deutsch (2011), he has edited, with K. Luchner, The Preso-
cratics from the Latin Middle Ages to Hermann Diels (2011), and he has
contributed a new critical edition of Metaphysics Alpha Major to the Sympo-
sium Aristotelicum volume devoted to that book (2012).
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
List of Contributors ix
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics
ALBERTO ROSS
I. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to propose a critical revision of the traditional inter-
pretation of Met. , according to which the Aristotelian Prime Mover is the
final cause that explains the eternal movement of the heaven, rather than a
formal or an efficient cause postulated for the same purpose. The importance
of this discussion is widely acknowledged, and it is a subject upon which
there is no unanimous agreement among interpreters. The different accounts
of the causal relationship between the Unmoved Mover and the physical
world have given rise to one of the most recurrent controversies in the history
of the transmission of the Corpus Aristotelicum, and it is a question that
does not admit simple or simplistic answers.
A good example of the long tradition of attempts to redress this exegeti-
cal problem is the discussion recorded by Simplicius in his commentary on
Physics VIII. At the end of his paraphrase, the Greek commentator introdu-
ces a digression in the following terms:
Some think that Aristotle says the primary mover which he hymns as
mind, eternity and god is only a final cause and not also an efficient
cause of the world and in particular of the heaven, since it is eternal and
consequently ungenerated. They think this because they hear him often
saying that it causes motion as the object of love, and often celebrating
it as a final cause. It is a good idea, then, to prove that here too he is
consistent with his teacher in calling god not only a final cause but also
an efficient cause both of the entire world and the heaven.1
This is an ancient formulation of the question regarding the causality of the
Prime Mover, and we find that it distinguishes between two aspects of the
discussion that it is always important to differentiate. On the one hand, Sim-
plicius refers to the dilemma of the kind of causality of the Prime Mover
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
208 Alberto Ross
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 209
9. The life of this principle is such as the best which we enjoy, and it is
thinking on thinking.10
10. The universe is analogous to an army and a household.11
The logical reconstruction of these theses has generated all sorts of discus-
sions. One of the most polemical issues associated with this topic is precisely
the clarification of how this Prime Mover moves, being a contemplative intel-
lect and having these characteristics. Unfortunately, this is a question that
Aristotle does not answer explicitly in the text, so an exegetical exercise is
necessary to illustrate the point.12
The order of the exposition in this work will run as follows: Firstly, I
will present the traditional reconstruction of Met. . Secondly, I will intro-
duce the main objections to this interpretation and some of the new accounts
of the causality of the Prime Mover, which are precisely elaborated from
criticisms of the traditional reading of the text. Thirdly, I will offer a reply
to these objections and to the new accounts that appeal to different parts of
the Corpus. As a conclusion, I will try to prove that it is still possible to
defend the traditional interpretation of Met. , in spite of the strong objec-
tions against it.13
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
210 Alberto Ross
they do the next best thing and perform the only perfect, continuous physical
movement, i.e. movement in a circle. In this reading of the text, the Prime
Mover appears as the final cause that explains the eternal motion of heaven.
According to this interpretation, the Prime Mover moves the first heaven
directly as its telos. Since it moves by inspiring love and desire, this implies
that the first heaven is capable of feeling love and desire, that is to say, it has
a soul. This seems to be supported by what Aristotle claims in De cael: the
first heaven, the planets, the sun and the moon are living beings.14 Alexander
of Aphrodisias was one of the first defenders of this interpretation,15 and
after him, many ancient,16 medieval 17 and contemporary18 commentators
have done the same with different refinements.19 Before Alexander, Theo-
phrastus had offered an interesting testimony for corroborating this interpre-
tation, as I will mention later.20 However, despite this long tradition of inter-
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 211
preters, in recent years some scholars have disagreed with this reading and
have offered some interesting objections to reject this account.21 In order to
reconstruct this discussion, these arguments against the traditional interpre-
tation of Met. will be presented in the following section.
21 See Broadie, S. 1993: Que fait le premier moteur dAristote? Sur la thologie du livre Lamb-
da de la Mtaphysique , in: Philosophique de la France et de ltranger, 183, 375411;
Judson, L. 1994: Heavenly Motion and the Unmoved Mover, in: M. L. Gill/J. G. Lennox
(eds.), Self Motion: From Aristotle to Newton, Princeton, 155171; Kosman, A. 1994:
Aristotles Prime Mover, in: M. L. Gill/J. G. Lennox (eds.), Self Motion: From Aristotle to
Newton, Princeton, 135153; Berti, E. 2000b: Unmoved mover(s) as efficient cause(s) in
Metaphysics L 6, in: M. Frede/D. Charles (eds.), Aristotles Metaphysics Lambda. Symposi-
um Aristotelicum, Oxford, 181206 and Berti, E. 2012: The Finality of Arisotles Unmoved
Mover in the Metaphysics Book 12, Chapters 7 and 10, in: Nova et Vetera, 10, 863876;
Bradshaw, D. 2001: A new look at the First Mover, in: Journal of the History of Philosophy,
39, 122; Salis, R. 2009: La causalidad del motor inmvil segn Pseudo Alejandro, in:
Estudios de Filosofia, 40, 201209; Stevens, A. 2011: La causalit de lintellect dans la
Mtaphysique et le trait De lme, in: La causalit chez Aristote, ed. L. Couloubaritsis/
S. Delcomminette, ParisBruxellesVrinOusia, 125137.
22 See Met. 1071b1217.
23 See GC 324b1314.
24 See Berti 2000b (see note 21), 186; Bradshaw (see note 21), 7; and Salis (see note 21), 202.
25 See Met. 1072a26b4.
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
212 Alberto Ross
are other arguments that have the purpose of showing that this is not the
correct reading of those texts. One of these arguments is the following:
3. In order to explain the causal relation between the Prime Mover and
the first moved, it is embarrassing for the traditional interpretation that
Aristotle says nothing about imitation (mimesis) in the text: contem-
porary criticism of such a view would therefore assert that the traditional
interpretation is nothing but a Neoplatonic reconstruction.29
26 See Berti 2000b (see note 21), 200206 and 2012 (see note 21), 863868; Salis (see note
21), 203; and Stevens (see note 21), 125138.
27 See Broadie (see note 21), 378379; Bradshaw (see note 21), 8. The texts are: Met.
1072b30 ff, 1073a511, 1075a11 ff.
28 Met. 10, 1075a1115.
29 See Broadie (see note 21), 379; and Salis (see note 21), 204206.
30 See Met. 1072a2627.
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 213
for motion in the sphere.31 Therefore, there are actually two desires, not
one. This reading of the text would not be the most economical one.
5. Met. 7 distinguishes two senses of that for the sake of which, i.e. as
objective (tinos) and as beneficiary (tini) of action.32 It is clear that the
Prime Mover is not the beneficiary of the motion of the first sphere.
However, the imitation story is not easy to link with our understanding
of objective.33 If the sphere-souls love of divine contemplation takes
the form of an impulse to imitate it in a physical medium, then in relation
to this imitative activity, the divine contemplation is not really an objec-
tive one. Strictly speaking, divine contemplation would not be the final
cause of motion, but rather an exemplary cause.34
6. If this were the case (i.e. if the Prime Mover were an exemplary cause),
although the motion of the sphere depends on the highest activity as final
cause (in the odd sense of exemplary), then the cosmos would be alive
forever with order and beauty unfounded on the good. Thus, it is not
certain that the processes within the cosmos take place because they or
their ends are fair and good, since the goodness of the principle on which
everything else depends is ultimately irrelevant to its existence.35
31 See Broadie (see note 21), 380; and Bradshaw (see note 21), 7.
32 See Met. 1072b13.
33 See Broadie (see note 21), 382; Berti 2000b (see note 21), 187 and 201.
34 See Broadie (see note 21), 382.
35 See Broadie (see note 21), 384; Berti 2000b (see note 21), 201; and Bradshaw (see note
21), 8.
36 See Bradshaw (see note 21), 8.
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
214 Alberto Ross
These are some of the main criticisms of the traditional account of Met. .
In addition to these, objectors and other commentators have introduced new
accounts of the text. S. Broadie, A. Kosman and A. Stevens, for example,
have suggested that the Prime Mover is a form or a certain kind of soul.37
They hold this, despite Aristotles contention that it is impossible to explain
the eternity of change from a cause that is capable of accidental motion,
which seems to be the case with a soul.38 Nevertheless, in favor of this posi-
tion, it is possible to say that a divine self-moving principle would not have
this problem in particular; first, because it would not be subject to the causal
agency of a periekhon39 (because the periekhon would be itself) 40 and, sec-
ond, because this lack of periekhon also implies that there is no surrounding
environment in relation to which it might be said to move accidentally from
one place to another. It is important to remember that the motion of the
sphere is self-contained because of its circular, eternal and continuous na-
ture.41 Thus, it seems possible to say without contradiction that the Prime
Mover is a form or a certain kind of soul. I will return to this argument later.
L. Judson has introduced another interpretation. He disagrees with the
idea of a Prime Mover as a self-mover. Judson asserts that the Prime Mover
is a transcendent entity quite distinct from the heavenly sphere which causes
its motion,42 although like Broadie, Kosman and Stevens he rejects the final
cause as an explanation of the relation between heaven and the Prime Mov-
er.43 He supports the idea that Aristotle was entertaining a notion of an effi-
cient cause sufficiently wide to subsume a final cause. On the basis of the
distinction between proximate and remote causes, he claims that desire is the
efficient proximate cause of motion; the object of desire (the Unmoved Mov-
er) would be its remote efficient cause.
E. Berti has a similar opinion. He admits a total independence of the
Prime Mover from the world.44 Berti defends the claim that the reference to
the objects of love and desire is only a comparison that notes how both the
heavenly mover and the object of human desire move while remaining un-
moved and move by means of something that is moved, but the metaphor
would in no way be a reference to a teleological account. The Unmoved
37 See Broadie (see note 21), 387; Kosman (see note 21), 139; and Stevens (see note 21), 125
138.
38 See Phys. 258b1316, 259b737.
39 See Kosman (see note 21), 142.
40 See De cael. 279a24, 278b23, 284a7.
41 See Kosman (see note 21), 146.
42 See Judson (see note 21), 155157
43 See Judson (see note 21), 164167.
44 See Berti 2000b (see note 21), 202 and 2012 (see note 21), 865868.
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 215
The order of exposition in this section will be as follows: First, I will attempt
to prove that there is no problem in accepting that the Prime Mover, being
an object of love, desire or intellection is a final cause (attending to objections
(3), (4), (5), (6) and (7)). Second, I will offer an explanation in order to show
the compatibility of the traditional account of Met. , and those passages
that seem to refer to an efficient cause (attending to objections (1) and (2)).
To begin with objection (3), it is true that Aristotle never states explicitly
that the first heaven imitates the activity of the Prime Mover. In addition,
regarding objection (5), it is true that the Prime Mover according to the
classical interpretation would seem to be an exemplary cause. However, it
is possible to mention some passages from other parts of the Corpus where
Aristotle introduces something like an exemplary cause as a final cause,
and some passages that suggest that the first heaven imitates the activity of
the Prime Mover, despite the fact that there is no explicit reference to this
type of account in Met. . It is accepted, as Philoponus says, that Aristotle
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
216 Alberto Ross
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 217
ly transformed in virtue of their qualities and their powers, e.g. the sim-
ple bodies imitate circular motion. []. Hence it is by imitating circular
motion that rectilinear motion too is continuous.51
In this text, the relationship between the corruptible world and the incorrupt-
ible one in terms of imitation is also confirmed. In this case, the example
or the model consists in simple bodies imitating the circular motion of the
heavens. Thus, it seems to be true from both passages that Aristotle uses
explanations that appeal to an exemplary cause, and that this kind of
explanation is a teleological account for him; it is not necessarily a Neopla-
tonic reconstruction.
In order to link these passages with Met. , it is important to remember
what kind of relationship is assumed by Aristotle when he speaks of different
types of substances. He claims in 7 that there must be a mover which
moves without being moved, and there must be an eternal and active sub-
stance in order to explain the unceasing motion of the heavens.52 We find a
similar idea in Phys. VIII 6, where he says that the Prime Mover imparts
motion always in the same way because it does not itself change in relation
to that which is moved by it.53 In contrast, a moved mover would impart
another kind of motion because it stands in varying relations or positions
regarding the things that it moves, and so produces contrary motions.54 Ac-
cording to these passages, there is a causal connection between the Prime
Mover, the heavens and the sublunary world, thanks to their similar but non-
identical properties. Eternity subsists in all of them but in a different way,
and that is what makes their causal relationship possible. The main difference
between Met. and the theory of Phys. VIII would be the kind of causality
attributed to the Prime Mover. If there is an analogical relationship between
the connection of the sublunary world and the heavens and the connection
of the heavens and the Prime Mover, it is possible to say that the heavens
imitate the latter, despite the fact that Aristotle does not use the term mimesis
in Lambda. The passages cited from Met. 7 and Phys. VIII 6 suggest that
these relationships are analogical in the Aristotelian account of motion.
In regard to the kind of imitation that takes place (i.e. the circular motion
of the first heaven), it is necessary to add something. It is possible to find
two indirect but important references that could support the traditional inter-
pretation on this point. First, Platos mention of circular movement as the
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
218 Alberto Ross
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 219
selves and to partake in what is eternal and divine, or in the same way that
simple elements tend to engage in reciprocal transformations and at the same
time imitate the eternal motion of the heavens. Strictly speaking, Aristotle
does not talk about two desires, but about two aspects of one and the same
desire.61
As for the compatibility of this account with the passages of this book
that seem to refer to an efficient cause, some observations would be appropri-
ate. First, we have the passage 6, where Aristotle states that if there is
something that is capable of moving (kinetikon) things or capable of acting
(poietikon) upon them, but is not actually doing so, there will be no move-
ment.62 Some commentators understand these lines as a reference to the effi-
cient causality of the Prime Mover. However, there are several reasons to
differ.
First, it is crucial to notice the negative framing of this passage. In other
words, those lines refer only to what the Prime Mover is not. The argument
asserts:
61 Barbara Botter introduces another answer to this objection from a different version of the
text. This version is taken from Alexanders Commentary on Metaphysics referred to by
Averroes (see Botter (see note 18), 193).
62 See Met. 1071b1217.
63 See Met. 1071b1217.
64 See Phys. 266a12266b20.
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
220 Alberto Ross
second, that a final cause explains the eternal motion without itself being
moved. The first demonstration is negative, so it does not have to determine
the description of the posterior cause mentioned.
In addition to these considerations, it is true that the terms kinetikon
and poietikon usually refer to an efficient cause in the Corpus, but this is not
always the case. There are some parts of the Corpus where Aristotle talks
about two different senses of kinoun. The clearest is the passage of Phys. VII
2, where Aristotle says: that which is the first mover of a thing in the
sense that it supplies not that for the sake of which, but the source of the
motion is always together with that which is moved by it.65 Here, kinoun
can bear two meanings, i.e. as an efficient causa and as final causa. If we
accept that kinetikon and poietikon are synonyms in Met. 6 and that kine-
tikon and kinoun are the same (the first one in potency and the second one
in action), this reference does not necessarily give a definitive indication of
the efficient causality of the Prime Mover. Andr Laks has pointed out in
this connection that the suffix -ikon is less constraining than criticisms of
the traditional interpretation suggest.66 It indicates, in general terms, that
there is a certain relation between the radical and what is said to be -ikon.
Laks also observes that there is a disjunction (e) between the two terms that
could introduce the second term as either an alternative or an equivalent
one. The opponents of the traditional interpretation assume immediately the
second option, but it is possible to read the text in the first way. In any case,
the term kinetikon would refer to the first mover as a principle of motion in
general and not specifically to the efficient cause.
In regards to the use of the adverb hos in 7, it is true that this expres-
sion could just mean as if. In this sense, the formula hos eromenon would
have no more than a metaphorical value. However, it is also correct to read
it with a modal force, i.e. meaning in so far as.67 The first option makes
sense, as long as we accept that the Prime Mover introduced earlier is an
efficient cause. But if this is not the case, as I have attempted to prove, it is
better to adopt the most natural reading of the text, i.e., that the Prime
Mover is an object of love and desire, so it moves in so far as it is loved and
desired. In order to support that point and in addition to the arguments
already mentioned, we could return to the passage of Simplicius referred to
at the beginning of this work.68 According to the text, some think that Aris-
totle says that the Prime Mover is only a final cause because they hear him
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 221
often saying that it causes motion as the object of love, and often celebrating
it as a final cause. It is interesting to notice the affirmation of Simplicius
about the origin of the controversy. According to the Greek commentator,
the reason this problem arises within Aristotelian doctrine is the thesis of
Metaphysics that describes the Prime Mover as a principle that moves hos
eromenon. Simplicius text makes no direct reference to this book of Aris-
totles, but rather to a thesis that has been heard from him many times (pol-
lakis). Nevertheless, it is well known to us where such a description appears
and it was also thus for the ancients.69 So what can be established with
certainty is that, from Antiquity, the expression hos eromenon was generally
read it with a modal force, i.e. meaning in so far as. Thus, Simplicius
noticed a tension between what is asserted in the Metaphysics and the pos-
sible attribution of an efficient causality to the Prime Mover in order to
defend the harmony between Aristotle and Plato.
Lastly I would like to mention the analogies of Met. 10 between the
universe and an army and a household. This part of the book seems to con-
solidate the account of chapters 6 to 9 by a switch of focus: it no longer
deals with the specific intellectual activity of the Prime Mover, but rather
with its characterization as a unifying final cause. It starts with a reference to
the nature of the universe, and continues by describing a stratified joint-
arrangement of the entire world. This issue admits also a minimalist read-
ing. The nucleus of the analogy could be just the fact that, in an army, the
general does not depend on order, but that order depends on him; further-
more, everything in the universe is ordered together, as in a household. Both
analogies can reflect the causal power of the Prime Mover as a final cause.
It is responsible for the order of the cosmos because thanks to it the heavens
are moved eternally, and thanks to this movement the eternal succession of
coming-to-be and passing-away is possible. The similarity of the different
parts of the universe reveals its unity and this order depends on its main
element, i.e. the Prime Mover.
Aristotle states in Met. 8 that the motions of the heavens are jointly
arranged, so he has to focus his attention on the sublunary world. Sublunary
things live in varying degrees towards the whole, which is compared to
the way in which various members of the household act in different degrees
towards what is communal. The level of participation is higher among
free men than among slaves, but the order in the house implies that the high
69 It is commonly accepted that Simplicius knew this text and it has even been suggested that
he may have written a commentary on it. See Hadot, I. 1987: Simplicius, sa vie, son uvre,
sa survie, BerlinNew York; and Baltussen, H. 2008: Philosophy and exegesis in Simplicus,
London.
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
222 Alberto Ross
I have attempted to answer the most important objections against the tradi-
tional interpretation of Met. . Now, I will introduce some remarks related
to new accounts of the Prime Mover, particularly, the following:
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 223
animals affects the causal power of the soul and it could be the case of the
soul of the universe, in spite of the lack of a periekhon. This account is taken
from Phys. VIII 6, but there are no reasons to suggest it does not work in
Met. . Second, there is another problem about (ii). This account introduces
a new complication in that the immobility of the Prime Mover would not
depend on itself, but on the lack of a periekhon. In this case, the Prime
Mover could itself be affected by something external, but that is not the case
since the external factor is not present. The Prime Mover would be absolutely
unmoved by accident, and not by itself. Finally, it is important to take into
consideration that Aristotle mentions, in Phys. VIII and Met. , that the
Prime Mover must be separated and unmixed (as the nous referred to by
Anaxagoras).72 In contrast, a soul must be mixed with a body. Thus, if we
say that the Prime Mover is a soul, in the sense that it is an immaterial
principle connected to a body but not mixed with it, then there is no real
difference between this account and the traditional one.
Concerning (iii) (i.e. the identification of the Prime Mover with the forms
of the natural substances), it is worthwhile to take into consideration the
following: If this were the case, the Prime Mover would be the proximate
cause of all types of motion in view of the different types of form. However,
this contradicts the observation of Phys. VIII 6 and Met. 7, according to
which the Prime Mover imparts motion always in the same way because it
does not itself change in relation to that which is moved by it, and in con-
trast, the moved mover imparts another kind of motion because it stands in
varying relations to the things that it moves, so it produces contrary mo-
tions.73 Actually, Aristotle himself explains in another passage why the set of
souls cannot be the main explanation of the eternity of motion, considered
as something continuous and eternal.74 Bradshaw justifies his account with
a reference to Phys. II 7, where Aristotle says that form, mover and for the
sake of which often coincide.75 If it is used to assimilate the final causality
of the Prime Mover with its efficient power, the reference is problematic. In
fact, the text refers to an identification of the causes in specie, not in number
(for example, a man generates a man),76 and it only implies that an efficient
cause shares the same species with its effect. It is not enough to enable us to
identify the Prime Mover as an efficient cause and not a final one.
However, there is another text that could be used in order to defend
thesis (iii). In De an. II 4, Aristotle presents the soul in these terms: It is a
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
224 Alberto Ross
formal cause because the essence is identical with the cause of its being, and
here, in the case of the living things, their being is to live.77 In another sense,
the soul is a final cause because all natural bodies are organs of the soul.78
Finally, the soul is conceived as an efficient cause because it is the original
source of local movement79 and the same goes for all other qualitative or
quantitative changes.80 Thus, Aristotle can say without contradiction that the
soul is form, mover and for the sake of which, because the issue explained
(the explanandum) is different in each of the three cases. However, the Prime
Mover in Phys. VIII, as also in Met. , explains the same issue, i.e. eternity
of motion. Hence, there is just one explanandum, and so in this case it is not
possible to use the same kind of description that Aristotle introduces in De
an. II 4 in order to explain the causal power of soul. Then, if the Prime
Mover is the cause of the eternity of motion and nature depends on it just
in this way, then the Prime Mover must be one, and one only, of the following
causes: efficient, formal or final.
In view of the replies to objections (1) to (7) presented in the previous
section and the arguments against positions (i) to (iii) presented here, I think
that it is possible to assert that the traditional interpretation of Met. could
still be acceptable, i.e. that the Prime Mover is a final cause. Perhaps it im-
plies an exegetical reconstruction, but the nature of the text seems to demand
an answer of this kind.
Obviously, this conclusion maintains the tension between the accounts
of the Prime Mover in Phys. VIII and the version of Met. . The resolution
to this problem is an undoubted advantage of the interpretations that I set
out to reject in this work. However, it is also true that the traditional recon-
struction of the Lambda seems to be an answer to the philosophical problems
inherited from the Physics, and this is not a minor point. The Unmoved
Mover of Phys. VIII moves without affection and this is possible because the
First Mover is without magnitude.81 How does it happen? It seems that
Phys. VIII does not have a satisfying answer to this question, but Met.
offers an original alternative in order to fill this gap in our comprehension
of Aristotles metaphysics.
77 De an. 415b1213.
78 De an. 415b1819.
79 De an. 415b2122.
80 See De an. 415b2327.
81 Phys. 267b24.
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 225
Bibliography
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
226 Alberto Ross
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
The Causality of the Prime Mover in Metaphysics 227
Salis, R.: La causalidad del motor inmvil segn Pseudo Alejandro, in: Estu-
dios de Filosofia, 40, 199221 2009.
Sedley, D.: Metaphysics L 10, in: M. Frede/D. Charles (eds.), Aristotles
Metaphysics Lambda. Symposium Aristotelicum, Oxford 2000, 327
350.
Sharples, R.: Alexander of Aphrodisias and the End of Aristotelian Theology,
in: T. Kobusch/M. Erler (eds.), Metaphysik und Religion, Mnchen
Leipzig 2002.
Simplicius: In Aristotelis Physicorum Libros Commentaria (2 vols.), Berlin:
Reimer, 1882.
Simplicius: On Aristotles Physics 8.15, tr. I. Bodnr/M. Chase/M. Share.
Ithaca, 2012.
Simplicius: On Aristotles Physics 8.610, tr. R. McKirahan. Ithaca, 2001.
Stevens, A.: La causalit de lintellect dans la Mtaphysique et le trait De
lme, in: La causalit chez Aristote, ed. L. Couloubaritsis/S. Delcommin-
ette, ParisBruxellesVrinOusia 2011, 125137.
Themistius: In Aristotelis Metaphyicorum librum XII paraphrasis hebraice
et latine. Berlin, 1903.
Thomae Aquinatis: In duodecim libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis exposi-
tio. Ed. R. M. Spiazzi, TurinRome, 1964.
Vigo, A.: Naturaleza y finalidad, in:, A. Garca Marqus/J. Garca Huidobro
(eds.) 1994: Razn y praxis, Valparaso 1994.
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM
Authenticated | jaross77@gmail.com
Download Date | 10/20/16 6:51 AM