Religious clarification re: Hakim's Aristotle Leads the Way

[swimmermom3]

I am happily correcting papers this morning when I hear Swimmer Dude exclaim, "Whaaaaat?"

 

Could those of you who have the book, please read page 108 and tell us how you interpret the following passage:

 

"In Aristotle's cosmology, Earth stands dead still in the center of the universe with the Sun and stars and planets all circling it while attached to perfect -and perfectly clear-hard crystal spheres. Those encircling cosmic spheres nest one inside the other-54 of them-to create an elegant, shimmering universe. He said the farthest sphere belongs to the Prime Mover: God.

 

Is he referring to "the God" (around 330 BC), a god-particular to him? What? The Dude is not thinking too highly of Hakim, nor his mother since I can not offer an explanation.

[KarenNC]

http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/aristotle_prime_mover.htm

 

Aristotle does indeed use the term "God" to describe his Prime Mover.

 

Other resources

http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks//9780415468244/resources/Aristotle%20Prime%20Mover%20student%20sheet%20JM%2009_02_09.pdf

 

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/aristotle/section7.rhtml

Theology investigates the question of whether there is some common source to all substance, and Aristotle identifies this common source as a divine “prime mover.†There must be some kind of eternal, unchanging substance because the earth and time are not perishable, so there must be some substance within them that is also imperishable. This eternal substance has no potentiality, but only actuality, and its perpetual actuality makes the world eternal as well. This eternal substance must also be the prime mover, the source of all movement and change in the cosmos. To be the primer mover, this substance must itself be unmoving. The prime mover is an object of desire for the heavenly bodies, causing them to move. The prime mover is an object of desire only because it is supremely desirable, so it must enjoy the best possible life. Aristotle hence identifies this prime mover with a benign God, who spends his time in contemplation of contemplation itself. Aristotle wavers between saying there is a single prime mover or multiple prime movers. If there are many, their number, based on astronomical calculations, is either 47 or 55. The prime mover contemplates contemplation because anything lower would be unworthy of it and anything higher would imply that there is something more desirable than the existence of the prime mover himself. Because the prime mover is good, this means the universe as a whole is good.

 

An interesting point:

http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/religious-studies/comments/aristotles-concept-of-the-prime-mover/

God only thinks about himself – nothing else is a fit subject. Thus God only knows himself and remains eternally unaware of our existence and the physical world in which we exist.

[Dana]

It's from wiki, but here's an explanation of Aristotle's reasoning. Sounds like its explained in his Metaphysics.

 

I don't have a problem with it, although I might not have linked the picture of Jesus as the Prime Mover, but I can understand why artists would have made the connection.

[Melora in NC]

I think Aristotle was talking about the "First Cause," or "Unmoved Mover." This, as I understand it (and I am kind of fuzzy) was a non-personal sort of force that set the universe in motion, but which did not interact with or care about people. I think Hakim's explanation is poor.

[swimmermom3]

Thank you to everyone for taking the time to dig up resources and respond. We are currently reading Sophie's World and the Story of Philosophy along with Swimmer Dude's older sister. The page in the book sparked all kinds of questions which may take us a while to sort out through research. Dude's first task is to learn about the use of the word "god" or "God" and he also wants to know how to say it in Greek. This should keep him busy for awhile. He is unhappy with me since we started homeschooling too late for him to learn Greek so he could read what Aristotle actually wrote (we've been talking about the limitations of translations). I think I am getting a migraine.:tongue_smilie: