Talk:Unmoved mover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Is it possible to add a section on the flaws of Aristotle's reasoning, or would that be POV? (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Essence of Unmoved Mover = Necessary Existence?[edit]

A short comment: If the above is true, then Aristotle's UMM is not differentiated from Avicenna's God. The essence of the UMM is entelekheia, not existence. It's necessity is also distinct from Avicenna's use. Maybe I will add a comment in a week or two. 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely a bias on this page which conveniently assumes all Aristotle's arguments to be true, and doesn't seem to be an accurate description of the Unmoved Mover but rather an extol to Aristotle. 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Everlock


I added a section on Aristotle's reasoning, but unfortunately don't have time to track down a reference right now. I also note that the "Substance and change" section claims there were three types of substances, but only describes two. If I have time to dig out my old philosophy notes I will try to clean this up. --Culix 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the primary explanation in the article is an incorrect view of what Aristotle meant when he was talking about an unmoved mover, as alluded to in the Aristotelian response to modern criticism. A better view of an Unmoved Mover would be to imagine a caboose moving along a track, and knowing that there is an engine, which is to say, the engine is the foundation and underlying, persistent cause of the caboose moving. It isn't that the Unmoved Mover started the universe, it's that the universe's existence is contingent on the unmoved mover's existence. The problem is that what Aristotle meant by "movement" isn't in the scientific sense of, "Motion," but rather, change. The unmoved mover would be better translated as, the unchanged changer, even if it would be inconvenient to make this the premise of the article, given that "unmoved mover" is more well know, and more often used. Magicalhats15 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


Why is the concept of a god not mentioned once in the entire article? In fact, why is the word god not even on this page, even as a "related page" link? This is ridiculous, it is the fundamental concept of god(s), the prime mover(s)! Nobody can refute that this is in fact the same exact idea as the existence of a god or gods! Will someone clarify if I'm missing something? -Karonaway 04:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'll add the article to the Conceptions of God category.

Just out mild curiosity[edit]

What is the difference between the Unmoved Mover and the First Cause? --Dominus Noster (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment about merging / cleaning up[edit]

I think that merging this page with the suggested page is fine, as long as this title will remain searchable. I found this page today b/c I was looking for "unmoved mover". I would never have thought to search for "primum mobilus" (or any other Harry Potter-esque phrase).  :)

And as far as the content goes, this is exactly the kind of overview I was looking for. Adding more sources may be worthwhile, but I definitely think this page is useful, even in its current, limited form.

Sah65 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Unmoved mover is not the same thing as "Primum movens" or prime mover (a special instance of the plural unmoved movers). I've removed the merge tags on these pages and added Primum movens to the see also section. I'm sorry to mention Sah65, that I'm not entirely sure what this article is (meant to be) about, but as an overview of "unmoved movers" it's incredibly poor and you'd be well advised to keep researching.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In Greek[edit]

This page has it in in Greke in the Greek letters, but doesn't alsot transliterate it into English letter so I can know how to say it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


As noted in #Cleanup above, the section on #reasoning was added, in good faith I'm sure, but without the benefit of source. I've removed it because it's not correct, but it is a common mistake to presuppose Aristotle is arguing for modern cause of the beginning of the cosmos. He believed the cosmos to eternal and had no efficient cause, but rather, a final cause (telos) which, confusingly, is called the first cause. It first in logical sense, as in a priori or priority… Here's Ross:

For if there are others, [apart from the 47 or 55 unmoved movers] they will cause change as being a final cause of movement; [because they're so lovable / catchy like a pop song] but there cannot he other movements besides those mentioned. [no one saw any other movements in the sky] And it is reasonable to infer this from a consideration of the bodies that are moved; [the sun, moon, planets, and daily rotation of the fixed stars] for if everything that moves is for the sake of that which is moved, [if the sun, moon, planets and stars emulate the unmoved movers they idolize] and every movement belongs to something that is moved, [the 47 or 55 celestial spheres are each dancing to the beat of a different drum] no movement can be for the sake of itself or of another movement, [wait for it] but all the movements must be for the sake of the stars. [because…] For if there is to be a movement for the sake of a movement, this latter also will have to be for the sake of something else; so that since there cannot be an infinite regress, the end of every movement will be one of the divine bodies which move through the heaven. [the sphere of fixed stars is the one that fancies the prime mover]

The Creation re-mix of the cosmological argument is by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Sometimes Aristotle was a lousy Catholic, but when possible, Thomas was an excellent Aristotelian, here's his explanation (Prima Pars, Q. 18, Obj. 2) in Summa Theologica of Aristotle's live all-singing/all-dancing planetary substances that people the sky. We can't see the unmoved movers, and they're not looping with uniform circular motion, but the sun, moon, planets and stars impersonate the gods with such uncanny perfection, it's like Jupiter is Zeus and Venus is Aphrodite, etc.—Machine Elf 1735 17:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My two cents. Something like the deleted reasoning section might still eventually be useful in order to lead the un-initiated into the subject. I believe your objections could be fixed by adapting #4 and #5. For example: "Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement." -> "Thus, there must be some primary cause of all movement." At the moment, coming from the lede, the first sentence you hit contains a lot of references to terms not yet defined in the article, and not obviously relevant to anything immediately before or after that sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, your point about Aristotle not meaning "first" in the chronological sense is a good one, and there are still parts of the article that would indicate the wrong thing, including the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I know "sprucing" is still under way, but hopefully these actions will be taken in good faith...
  • I have adapted the first sentence of the article with the above point about chronology in mind.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have moved out this sentence for now: Aristotle rejected Plato's [[Form of the Good]], however many commonalities persist<ref>{{cite web |first=Cathal |last=Woods |title=On Aristotle's Metaphysics 12 |url=}}</ref> in Aristotle's theology, and his notions of ''the best'' and the ''good'' in teleological explanations of nature. Maybe I am missing point, but if so then it needs to adapted quite a lot and not just spruced? More to the point, I am thinking this sentence gets right into the more complex controversies, and should be later in the discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Good eye. It didn't really pan out. I was trying to capture some sense of piety or, really just some recognizable sense that these are gods. What did work out is down below and that was based on snips from the Nicomachean Ethics article, so that's totally right up your alley. And good edits to the lede too. I was going to say, they're unmoved… The only thing is, rather than the prime unmoved mover, it's the genus of unmoved movers. All 47 or 55 of them, and that number was supposed to be adjustable depending on the findings of astronomy/mathematics. They're exactly the same as the prime mover, except subordinate by an accidental relation (order/position). That's were the analogy to Zeus and the Olympians x4 ends because they're incapable of effecting, perceiving, interacting or communicating with each other. In the Physics, he focuses more on the prime mover, but it's the Sun, not the sphere of fixed stars, that he's reaching for and, as he apparently figured out later, he had to have an unmoved mover for each unique movement. Besides the long chains of efficient cause from the Sun's heat churning the terrestrial spheres, it was a little bit of an homage to Plato's Metaphor of the sun. Of course, in scholasticism, the prime mover is the Catholic God and the unmoved movers are just some boring angels. I should put this below, but it's where Aristotle pagan “errors” would probably seem the most offensive and where medieval Catholic theology vs. historical Aristotle or Aristotelian natural science even really becomes an issue.—Machine Elf 1735 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Shields p.222 gives a similar outline for Physics VIII, (apparently more for reference than readability). Here's a condensed paraphrase:

  1. There are things in motion.
  2. But a thing cannot move by itself.
  3. If the mover was not an unmoved mover, it must have been moved by something else.
  4. But any such chain must end with an unmoved mover; because…
  5. An infinitely long chain of movers would be impossible.
  6. Therefore, an unmoved mover exists.

Which is close, but I get the feeling it was an outline of Thomas' Summa, (Prima Pars q.2 a.3):

“… The existence of God can be proved in five ways… The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

I'm thinking, give the outline for Aristotle, and include Thomas' entire argument as an extended quote?—Machine Elf 1735 19:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, clear as mud. Thomas' first argument (from final cause) corresponds to Phys. VIII which is outlined above. (I meant to say that outline is close to the outline I removed, as opposed to his first arg). Here's a copy from the original post:

  • There exists movement in the world
  • Things that move were set into motion by something else
  • If everything that moves was caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
  • Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
  • This first cause cannot itself have been moved, or the infinite chain would start over again.
  • Thus, there must be an unmoved mover.

Below is Thomas' second argument (from first cause / efficient cause) which I think looks closer to (both) outlines than his first argument. I'm not opposed to adding them to the article or anything. Now, I'm even wondering if it's such a good idea to quote his entire final cause argument. The thought was that people tend to think the second argument below, corresponds to Phys. VIII, (superficially it does). It seems like quoting both would be too much, but maybe they could be trimmed down or just outlined (I see all 5 of them are fully quoted on the 5 ways article):

“The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

Machine Elf 1735 16:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

two lesser articles that I think should be merged to this one[edit]

  • 1. Primum movens is basically a stub which covers exactly the same subject as this one. I think merging is no big issue because I think that article can just become a redirect to here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • 2. For whatever reason Primum mobile has become an article about the medieval cosmic spheres aspect of this subject. That is something not being covered in Unmoved mover yet, but eventually it should be? I think that either that article should be merged to here, in a section to be about post Aristotelian stuff, or else it needs a new title. Most people searching for "primum mobile" are going to also want to see what is in Unmoved mover. Some people searching for "Unmoved mover" are going to want "primum mobile". Both articles are a reasonable size, and the articles currently cover different things, so the merge could be simple.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The stub's improved immensely though diminution. I'll copy it in here for reference. It's trivial to absorb but in Catholic scholasticism, the prime mover, is God: Father, Son, and the whole nine yards (notable enough to have His own article). So long as there's no interest in developing the scholastic angle in all it's florid glory, then sure. I just hope no one gets offended at God being associated with these weird pagan quasi-stellar powerless autistic divine immaterial active intellects. The two shouldn't ever have to debate each other or jockey for UNDUE. That being said, I think this article should retain it's plural English name ;)
Big yes on primum mobile. There's quite a bit about the celestial spheres in the article now, although the section's actually named Unmoved mover#Celestial spheres is tiny. You're much better at organizing, narrative and all that, so defiantly go right ahead and spruce anything you see needs sprucing. My eyes are still glazed over.—Machine Elf 1735 17:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Primum movens[edit]

Primum movens (Latin), usually referred to as the Prime mover or first cause in English, is a term used in the philosophy of Aristotle, in the theological cosmological argument for the existence of God, and in cosmogony, the source of the cosmos or "all-being".

Aristotle's ontology[edit]

In book 12 of his Metaphysics, Aristotle used the phrase τι ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ ("something which moves [other things] without [itself] being moved [by anything]")[1] -- i.e., the unmoved mover. When applied in his physics, this led to the view that all natural motions are uncaused and therefore self-explanatory.[2] Causality is linear, so causality or motion must be finally attributed to a first cause, which logically cannot itself be moved, i.e. the unmoved mover. To Aristotle the first cause is energy or energeia (in Greek) or actus (in Latin): energy causes motion. This is the foundation for the theory of actualism, a non-idealist philosophy of nature, science, logic, and mathematics.[3] Aristotle's actualistic ontology is a denial of "potential ontology" - that Being is the first cause of the cosmos.

  1. ^ Aristotle. Metaphysics. 1072a ff. 
  2. ^ Zev Bechler, Aristotle's Theory of Actuality, State University of New York Press (August 1995) Language: English ISBN 0791422402 ISBN 978-0791422403 [1]
  3. ^ Zev Bechler, Aristotle's Theory of Actuality, State University of New York Press (August 1995) Language: English ISBN 0791422402 ISBN 978-0791422403 [2]

  • These articles are historical, not that academic debate will ever settle. But it seems there must be a better place for ZB. It's doing him no favors. If he's not saying what the Philosopher (or Divine Doctor) said, it's reads like neoplatonism, and he's not saying what they said.—Machine Elf 1735 17:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
So what to do with Zev Bechler, and the link being proposed to actualism in the primum mobile article? We could paste bits of that article here but I am tempted to say that this stuff does not connect very directly to the subject of discussion (unmoved mover, primum mobile etc). Maybe the Bechler stuff is relevant to our actuality and potentiality article, but I am not sure?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Well the actualism article sure threw me for a loop by claiming it's the opposite of modal realism, although the SEP article (from which it draws heavily) explicitly says that's not applicable. I took a quick look at the ZB source, it wasn't emanating junk like “This is the foundation for the theory of actualism, a non-idealist philosophy of nature, science, logic, and mathematics.” Still, probably best just to remove it.—Machine Elf 1735 19:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably yes. No rush though. In the meantime, there is a discussion started on Primum Mobile.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I love it, in Convivio, Dante calls the fixed stars cieli mobili… “while the notion of Unmoved Mover is precisely how Dante begins his entire discussion of the Empyrean”.
Veramente, fuori di tutti questi [cieli mobili], li catolici pongono lo cielo Empireo…
“It seems likely that in referring to Book I of the De Caelo Dante had in mind this passage, implying that these beings are to be indentified with Dante's ‘blessed spirits,’ by whoever properly understands Aristotle.”
Machine Elf 1735 16:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

restart of discussion about merging/rename proposal[edit]

As a rough and ready usage gauge, "Unmoved mover"+aristotle gets 127k hits ("first mover" gets more, 195k), whereas "prime mover"+aristotle gets 685k hits. (If you're curious, "Unmoved" and "Prime" get around the same Google Books hits, whereas "Prime" gets twice as many Scholar hits.) Before we redirect Primum movens here and switch all the links over, do we want to rename this article? "Prime mover" seems pretty commonplace, assuming we don't want a Latin or Greek title. -Silence (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about which title to make the main article but I think we should avoid a Latin term, simply because that does not seem to fit the Wikipedia style to me. I do also think you should take into account that the word prime mover is sometimes used in other senses. So on balance I would pick Unmoved mover.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Good enough for me! -Silence (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a new proposal actually… This article is about the unmoved movers (plural), not just the Prime Mover. Because the Primum movens article is so paltry, it makes sense to redirect it here (maybe a section introducing the Prime Mover in particular). Once it gets developed, it could be split back out, of course. I agree, the Latin titles should redirect to the English, at least in these cases. I've always thought it was strange that prime mover is a dab. (Primum movens seems rather obscure). I think it would be great if Aristotle's Prime mover were the primary topic. Hopefully that's possible. However, I think this article should retain it's current plural, English title.—Machine Elf 1735 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is in singular?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The title is singular, but I take it that MachineElf sees "unmoved mover" as applicable to a wide range of theorized 'first causes,' whereas Prime Mover refers specifically to Aristotle's conception thereof? (Similarly, the title of Grizzly bear is grammatically singular, but its subject matter is plural.) -Silence (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You say "I've always thought it was strange that prime mover is a dab." Are you suggesting we do something about that? E.g., move Prime mover (the dab page) to Prime mover (disambiguation) and then rename Unmoved mover to Prime mover? Or are you suggesting that we do the former, but have Prime mover redirect here (and include a link to the dab page at the top of Unmoved mover)? -Silence (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew, I really am blind as a bat lol. And thank you Silence, yes exactly. It's quite a hodgepodge by the middle ages, lesser intelligences/jinn/angels/astrology. Maybe Aristotle even had Plato's daimones somewhat in mind. Well, one advantage for Unmoved mover is that it works either way.—Machine Elf 1735 08:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, keeping Unmoved mover as the main title has two advantages: It's somewhat self-explanatory (as are "First mover" and "First cause" and "Uncaused cause"), and there's nothing else that uses that name. Switching to Prime mover (and moving the current page there to Prime mover (disambiguation)) has two different advantages: It seems to be the more common term these days, and it's more formal (and a bit closer to the Latin). Based on these considerations, which name do you think is best? I'm on the fence, though the large number of articles at Prime mover suggest to me that the current title has its virtues. The Stanford Encyclopedia certainly seems to like the locution "unmoved mover". -Silence (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
One worry is that Prime Mover is synonymous with God in Catholicism for example. I imagine an easily separable situation might be best in case something someday turns out to be indelicate or offensive to those readers. On the philosophy side, it makes perfect sense that the most notable member of it's kind could either have it's own page or be on this one. It doesn't work the work the other way around though. So I suppose, it would be directed here, if we merge Primum movens. Another option would be to beef that up a little and rename it Prime mover. I've sometimes linked to Cosmological argument for Prime mover because of the dab. Offhand, I'd say God's more notable than the locomotives. But how would one normally go about that for a dab? Just change it or put it on the proposed move page? I don't know.—Machine Elf 1735 09:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
"Unmoved mover" could describe God just as easily, and I don't think Catholics have the right to censor or obscure articles on non-Christian thinkers just because there are overlaps or parallels between ideas in both traditions. (Though they certainly have the right to expand the article in question with relevant comparisons.) In any case, I think Cosmological argument covers the Christian version of the Prime Mover pretty comprehensively, and we can certainly have a section or two on Unmoved/Prime Mover discussing later equivalents.
"Just change it or put it on the proposed move page?" - If it's not controversial, we can just move it. -Silence (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I tend to think a merge of all materials we have into the sub-sections of one article is neatest for now, partly because you can propose SEVERAL ways of eventually splitting this subject up "one day", but it is actually unlikely anyone will ever spend the time to do it, and when they do, they can easily fix the problem by creating new articles. Also, people who coming looking for information on such a medieval subject will often not even know WHICH aspect they are looking for. The fact that the concept is used in MANY ways, all "old fashioned" reminds me of nous, which I have made one article of. I at least could not come up with a better solution in that case. I have no strong opinion on which title to use. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, right now, consolidation seems to be the way to go. Silence, yes, "unmoved mover" works both ways whereas "Prime mover" does not. I don't mean to imply that Catholics would have the right to censor or obscure articles or that they would even want to do so. Rather, it's correct that anything but the most cursory treatment of unmoved movers would be excessive in an article on the "Prime mover", and further that it would be unnecessarily insensitive.—Machine Elf 1735 21:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you clarify what "unmoved mover" and "Prime Mover" mean to you, and which title you favor for this article (which, I'm assuming, will mainly cover Aristotle's concept but will also have room to at least mention later developments)? I'm getting a bit mixed up, I think because you're using those terms in theologically specific ways. -Silence (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the article should keep it's current name. Like you said, instead of Grizzly bears we have Grizzly bear. For Aristotle the unmoved movers are all of the same kind: those inspiring the motion of the inferior celestial spheres, merely suffer a subordinal relationship to the unmoved mover called the Prime Mover (aka “the” Unmoved Mover). The Prime mover inspires the motion of the sphere of fixed stars (or later, a superior sphere called Primum Mobile). The Prime Mover is synonymous with God in theology, as you say, but also in scholasticism, (least we forget the checkered history of science and natural philosophy). For parsimony, Aristotle would have been content with just one, but he needs multiple unmoved movers if he wants a fetching explanation for the free parameters of the Eudoxan model of planetary motion (no less would Ptolemy, had he cared). It's clear the planetary motions can't be derived from just the diurnal motion, and he knew it would take awhile to develop an ideal mathematical model. Geometers/astronomers were therefore expected to make adjustments, but it was looking like something in neighborhood of 47 to 55 uniform circular motions would be required. Their job is purely figurative, standing in teleologically for those necessities (evidently contingent) though presumably eternal and unchanging. Aether provided the material/efficient explanation in that it's capable of only one dynamic, uniform circular motion of a given frequency relative to the prime. His intuition is that uniform circular motion is somehow fundamental and primary, giving rise to all the sordid motions we know and love. Thus, (to be sure) they're our vouchsafe against chaos, the gods unembellished, those good spirits, one and all.—Machine Elf 1735 05:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Causeless cause[edit]

Interesting to see how many of the Also See articles are already covering cosmological aspects, so there is no shortage of places where the cosmologically inclined can expand about that. (Not that I see any problem fitting in at least a fair bit of cosmology in this article.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As I explained last time, it is a bad idea to merge unmoved mover (causeless cause) and prime mover (first cause,) because in any philosophy that uses the concepts distinctly (such as Hinduism, Judaism, the ancient Germanic religion, Meister Eckhart's philosophy,) the prime mover is moved by the unmoved mover. 'Prime/first' indicates a point in time or maybe also space, but 'unmoved' indicates eternity and infinity, and in these philosophies, the unmoved mover moves the prime mover, which only comes into action after a certain time, and then eventually stops, usually to be moved again and return to action (such as in Hinduism when Parabrahm (unmoved mover; transcendent Saguna Brahman) causes Brahman (prime mover; immanent Nirguna Brahman) to create the universe, which is then eventually destroyed, and only Parabrahm remains, until moving Brahman into action again to create a new universe.) Typical Westerners confuse the two movers because their religions (besides Judaism in Kabbalah, and esoteric analysis of ancient German religion) do not usually deal with the idea of an unmoved mover. It is only when people consider questions like 'before the universe was caused, what led to the cause of the universe?' do they deal with the idea of an unmoved mover, rather than merely a prime mover. Without both being distinct, there is no coherent answer to that question except with some other causality theory such as dependent arising, which does not have such 'movers.' Apparently my merge suggestion did not have the right link to causeless cause, but it is fixed now. Here is a chart comparing the ideas of unmoved mover, first mover, second mover, and third mover in various philosophies/religions: .--Dchmelik (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree the causeless cause stub should not be merged here for entirely different reasons. Your peculiar use of terms conflicts with Aristotle's usage, that being the tradition usage, which I've explained at length. In short, Prime Mover and “the Unmoved Mover” are synonymous, they both refer to a particular unmoved mover that is most certainly not the first in a temporal, but rather a logical sense. More figuratively, the first moved, corresponding to the starry sphere or later Primum movens celestial sphere, could be called superior, outermost or highest in a spacial sense. It remains to be seen if “causeless cause” is even WP:Notable, verging, as it does, on simple nonsense.
However, I agree that the cosmological confusion over temporal/logical primacy vis à vis St.Thomas' arguments, definitely should be reviewed here.—Machine Elf 1735 02:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok. I think the unmoved and prime mover pages should be merged, then.--Dchmelik (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Primum movens has been redirected, seemingly nothing to merge.—Machine Elf 1735 17:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


The argument is based on a reduction of causes, to a final cause. There doesn´t need to be a discussion on "several" because of this. Also since the argument is of this nature, it can be translated as "The Ultimate Cause/Mover". The esoteric part of the article should probably be in a section on its own. Interesting to see that it is in there though. It is a Jesus/Buddha that was the "founder of the school of logic" wasn´t it. Or "some of Gods spirit", as verses on Adams creation state. Should be in the article aswell. Also when mentioning "the universe", know that Aristotles Cosmos is finite, as would follow the argument. Today many quantum-physicians argue similary, and any logical argument will only be a variant of the same ofcourse, although more complex, for quantum-physics. It also belongs in the article that Einsteins E=MC2 is based on pantheistic thinking, and contains illogical math on infinity, as "E" is, which was before the same as the ultimate cause, and without it, Aristotles Ultimate Cause still is the only relevant.

PBWY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)