Skip to main content

first movers and beings like that... and Being

One way of arguing for a first mover (or, if you will, a first accelerator), is to make an analogy with a lessee who rents from someone else who is not the landlord but who is instead a subletting lessee.  The second lessee could likewise rent from one who is subletting rather than the landlord, etc.  But in order for this series to be coherent, there must be a landlord, a non-leasing lettor.  But that landlord could have come into this position at a determinate point in time.  Hence this analogy, while clarifying the simultaneity of cause/effect by referring us to the lessor/lessee, is not perfectly analogous to the sort of first mover argument that one would use to argue for God's existence.

Another (defective) way would be to argue that God is the first pusher in a mechanistic universe.  Problem with this is that momentum needs no cause.  So God is probably filling the gaps in this argument.

The third, best way of arguing for a first mover is to argue first for many first movers in the sense of substantial form/final cause, acting for an intrinsic end, is the first cause of instrumental movements (hence mechanism, inasmuch as it is true, needs something meta-mechanistic, i.e., substantial form or an intrinsic principle of motion and rest.  Only THEN should argue for that which is first in moving these substantial-form-styled-first movers.  This Mover is first, albeit in a different order than the previously mentioned first mover.  THAT sort of argument (first for substantial form as principle of operation and secondly for an unconditioned condition of that operation) may escape the problems just mentioned.  For it doesn't just happen to be first at this time (as did the first mover implied by the first version of this argument); nor is its causing movement is not a miraculous gap filling, but the creatio continua.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more