Critique of Aristotle’s theory of the prime mover
No se pudo agregar al carrito
Add to Cart failed.
Error al Agregar a Lista de Deseos.
Error al eliminar de la lista de deseos.
Error al añadir a tu biblioteca
Error al seguir el podcast
Error al dejar de seguir el podcast
-
Narrado por:
-
De:
In life, it is wise to correct errors swiftly because otherwise they will grow and grow. The longer you wait, the worse it will get. The more lies you tell yourself, the higher the barriers to recovery. Eventually, you’ll reach the point where recovery is no longer possible. Despite his enormous wisdom, Aristotle (384-322 BC) put forward the theory of the prime mover. He should have soon realized that the theory is false. Maybe he did realise, but the error remained uncorrected in the existing copies of his book “Metaphysics.” According to the prime-mover theory, there has to exist one eternal, intangible entity responsible for all events taking place in the world. I draw your attention to the wording “there has to exist,” which is utter nonsense. If you take the prime-mover theory seriously, it means that a mysterious eternal force is responsible for making your team win the league, or helping you pass an exam or get a good job. Conversely, the prime mover is to blame when your puppy goes pissing all over the house, your car gets a flat tire, or you get a toothache after eating four dozen cookies. I cannot argue personally with Aristotle about his concept of a prime mover, but I can point to the catastrophic impact it has had in history. Century after century, the most inane theories had been predicated by referring to Aristotle’s prime mover. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) employed Aristotle’s concept of a prime mover to argue that God is ultimately behind all the events taking place in the world. Even worse, Aquinas misused Aristotle’s theory of causality to propose a logical proof that God exists and that he is indeed the prime mover. The “proof” is as misleading and worthless as Aristotle’s prime-mover concept. I can summarise Aquinas’ proof in two sentences: Every entity in motion must necessarily be moved by something else, but this chain cannot regress infinitely. At the beginning of the chain, there has to be a first mover giving impulse to all others. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-aristotles-theory-of-the-prime-mover/