The philosopher's concept of it, as a "unmoved motor", the "prime cause", the "form itself", with no "move or/and substance"... is one that makes him the most intelligent-smart-clever person of all time; the biggest thinker of all time; the greates professor one could have on earth.
Waht do you think of it? Agree with and accept as well as me (or I)?
Ie
2006-09-11 06:11:38 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I agree he was very smart and a great thinker.
I also accept that he lived thousands of years ago, at a time when "gods" were considered to be everywhere, and when we didn't have much (if any) scientific knowledge. We've learned an awful lot as a species since then, making many of his ideas as out of date as others of his time.
The best thing he has to teach us is HOW to think, not WHAT to think. In his method of thought and analysis, he was outstanding.
2006-09-11 06:23:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Aristotelian concept of god and reasoning process have influenced western thought and western religions from the time of his writings. The position over and against Plato and Socrates, the influence of the Pythagoreans, the Cynics, even up to and including Plotinus...his writings are an essential aspect of western civilization.
The god concept has been reinterpreted and re evaluated innumerable times to suit a particular religious view or to argue against a view....
Nota Bene: the one "problem" with the prime cause is its ineffable quality....the prime cause/first mover etc etc etc
is essentially-by definition-unknowable, unfathomable, unreachable by human thought....not an interpersonal diety, not and interactive with humanity god, not a caring/feeling godhead...
and this coldness, eventually, was unsatisfying to those that needed an up close and personal god
ah well...
the debate goes on...but the western world is still playing by and large by Aristotle's rules of the game
2006-09-11 11:49:10 · answer #2 · answered by Gemelli2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Aristotle's concept of the unmoved mover, now identified as God (the first cause of things) is quite brilliant. He deduced by reason that there must be an originator, and for him this was a living being (not a big bang), eternal (without beginning or end), and good (not merely neutral).
2006-09-11 06:41:43 · answer #3 · answered by jayelthefirst 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I feel that it is a cop out.
A is caused by B, B is caused by C etc etc. seemingly without end.
So what do we do about it?
Conjure up a creature out of nowhere called the "un-caused cause"
This seems to solve the problem. But is there any evidence for such creature?
No, none whatsoever.
Sorry Aristotle, i am not buying it -- better luck next time!
2006-09-11 11:48:05 · answer #4 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any concept that justifies the presence of any higher spirit is full of flaws in my eyes. u don't need higher presence in order to learn good values and morals
2006-09-11 07:13:57 · answer #5 · answered by vick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say I would have more respect for him if he had come to atheistic enlightenment. C'est la vie.
2006-09-11 06:53:32 · answer #6 · answered by Phil Knight 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tell us more about it.
2006-09-11 06:14:20 · answer #7 · answered by mollyneville 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋