Phil 101: Goods, Gods, and Billiards

What is the Final Cause of the Universe itself?

Last time we talked about Aristotle’s Causes for the existence of objects, but their real value (as I hinted at) is explaining change, something Plato struggles with. So let’s look the Causes in that vein, in the context of a game of pool.

What causes the #3 ball to move?

• Material Cause - The ball has matter, but it can not move itself, thus the material cause of the ball’s movement is cue ball.

• Efficient Cause - But the cue ball didn’t move itself. The pool cue did. But the pool cue also can’t move itself, so the movement must originate with something that can move itself. Thus, the efficient cause of the #3 ball’s movement is the player holding the cue.

• Formal Cause - The ball rolls because it’s round; it’s Form is designed to roll. The Form provides a potentiality of rolling. If the ball were square, it would not roll, but it also would not a ball.

• Final Cause - What is the final destination of the ball’s movement? Hopefully the pocket of the table (rarely happens for me, but perhaps you’re a better pool player.)

In broad terms, the Efficient Cause (me) used the Material and the Form to bring about the Final Cause.

But there is a problem here… why am I capable of moving? Don’t I also have an Efficient Cause? So perhaps the #3 ball actually moves because of the Efficient Cause that made it possible for me to move. My parents created me, but they also had parents (who may or may not have played pool.) Thus we get a chain of Efficient Causes, a chain of descent that produces something capable of self-motivation, and thus capable of causing movement in inanimate things.

Aristotle says this causal chain must terminate at some point in an Efficient Cause that is itself unchanging, and thus required no causation to bring it about, an uncaused Cause. He calls this the Prime Mover.

All movement (or change) originates with the Prime Mover, works through intermediate beings that are capable of self-movement (potentiality or free will), until one of those beings imparts movement to an object not capable of self-movement.

If you want a more academic treatment of this, review the Dr. Schlueter’s video from the last post, starting at about 3:40:

This is a form of a cosmological argument, and is, in fact, one of the more basic philosophical proofs for the existence of God. It does not get you to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but it’s cleanly escapes naturalistic materialism.

The simplest cosmological argument is this:

1. All things that begin have a cause.

2. The universe began.

3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

That is actually called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. While Aristotle’s is more focused on movement and change instead of existence, but both rely on a “chain of causation” problem, which remains a gaping hole in the materialist argument even today. Nobel-winning physicists have spent decades trying to prove the Big Bang caused itself (was it’s own Efficient cause) thus linking the chain back to itself in a closed loop.

Stop and think about that… some of the finest minds in the world are still trying to refute an ancient Greek from 2200 years ago. I think that’s pretty cool (for the ancient Greek.)

How Does an Unchanging Being Cause Change?

The Prime Mover can not directly interact with the world, since interaction causes change in both parties, and the Prime Mover can’t change. However, he can permanently exude qualities that attract other beings¹, and the one Aristotle focuses on is love. The Prime Mover attracts us to himself, drawing our souls (our Formal Causes) to his own Form, which is love. Everything else moves and changes by choice (potentiality), but the Prime Mover has no potentiality since he can’t change. Thus he can only cause other things that do have potentiality to move toward him.

A BIG caveat here: this is a very long way from the Christian concept of God loving man in a personal way. Aristotle explicitly denies that possibility. But oddly, when talking about the Prime Mover’s love, he uses the term eros which we commonly translate as personal or romantic love instead of agape, which will be used when New Testament writers talk about God’s love. The use of agape was rare at Aristotle’s time though, and my (limited) understanding is that it was more commonly used to express a love of the qualities of a thing: “I love apples” or “I love my car”. The alternative word philia (brotherly love) might confer a love of equals or friends which is also not what Aristotle meant, so perhaps eros was simply the best available at his time. Languages do change; there are subtle differences between Homer’s Greek, Aristotle’s, and Saint Paul’s. This is one of them.

However, regardless of specific word choice, it is interesting that a pagan Greek (again) writing 200 years before Christ posits an unchanging being that caused the universe and whose primary quality is love.

Connecting Back to Plato

Despite the disagreements between the two men, Aristotle’s Prime Mover and Plato’s Form of Good turn out to be pretty similar in practice. Aristotle is more focused on change, Plato on being. Aristotle believes the Prime Mover draws us to him, Plato believes we must struggle to seek the Good. Aristotle focuses on the causation chain, Plato on the shared attributes of objects. Aristotle’s Prime Mover can’t interact with the world; for Plato, everything participates in the Good to some degree. But both posit an unchanging, eternal force of some kind that transcends the physical world.

Readings

On The Soul Book 2 - What is the soul?

Metaphysics Book 12 - The universal Final Cause (aka God)

Ecclesiastes 2 - The Futility of Materialism

Review Questions

Why must the Prime Mover by eternal and unchangeable?
(Hint: First video about a minute in.)

Re-read Republic Bk 2.381a-b. This passage has to do with consistency or unchangingness being a sign of god. Would Aristotle agree? How does his “Prime Mover” match up to Plato’s description? How does it match up to the Christian view of God?

Aristotle says the Prime Mover is all “actuality” and no “potentiality”. What does this mean? Why does it have to be true for an unchanging being?

1. Aristotle would dispute that his Prime mover is a “being”. He would say his Prime Mover has no being, since it’s pure abstract thought and can’t move or change. But lacking a better term, I’ll use it.