Unmoved Mover: Can Something Move Itself?

Let me now repeat the argument for the Unmoved Mover. There are at least some movers that are moved by other movers. There cannot be an infinite series of moved movers. Therefore there must be a first. Either this first mover is moved or it isn’t. It is self-contradictory to posit a first moved mover since it wouldn’t be a first mover. Therefore, there must be some First Unmoved Mover, which we will call God. 

In order to begin the argument, I will deny the conclusion [the first premise] and follow its implications to their [sic] logical conclusions in order to prove for my argument by reductio ad absurdum, which, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is “a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable” (IEP). 

Here is the argument proving that there is nothing that is moved by itself: if there is some thing which is moved by itself, it must not be moved by any of its parts or at least depend upon the motion of its parts in order to be moved. Otherwise, it would depend upon the motion of other things in order to be moved. For instance, the motion of an animal depends upon the motion of its foot in order to move.

However, since all things that are moved are divisible and have parts [(Physics, VI, 4)], a thing which is moved by itself must have parts. Therefore, either that thing does not depend upon the motion of its parts in order to be moved, or it does. If it does not, then it must be possible that the thing can move while a single part remains at rest, since the thing need not move along with its part if it is moved by itself. But if such were the case, then the whole could not move in unity as a whole, since the other part that moved along with the whole moved without the other part that remained at rest. Therefore, the whole cannot move by itself and through itself if it moved by itself and had parts. 

Therefore, that which is moved by itself must depend upon the motion of its parts in order to be moved. But anything that depends upon the motion of its parts is moved by something else. Therefore, there is nothing that is moved by itself [(Physics, VII)]

Aristotle. Physics. Trans. Richard McKeon. The Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House, 
           1941. Print 

Plato's Cave (animated version)

I posted an article describing the merits of contemplation a couple weeks ago. In it, there was a quote to Plato's "Allegory of the Cave," but the article excluded supporting context for readers who hadn't previously read the story. The YouTube video above shows the animated version of the story for those bloggers. Enjoy.

The Taboo of Contemplationis 06/16/14

The Lonely Ones (1899) by Edvard Munch

There has never been an issue more controversial than contemplation. Not controversial in the sense of making news headlines or anything of that sort. Most people, in fact, would not put the controversy in those terms. They might gossip about close relatives or associates who bear that term's characteristic form, saying something like, "What's he doing studying philosophy or reading literature? Kid needs to get a job." A Logic professor once stated that he would start conversing about Descartes' epistemological skepticism in order to privately shoo away people he didn't like. But why the controversy? Something so benign and unobtrusive ought not to attract as much private attention as it does in the minds of many. So what is contemplation, really? And what does it have to do with religion, if there's any connection at all?

Contemplation specifically refers to an intellectual habit typically involving God as its object. And it doesn't have to be God. The habit often involves speculating about His effects in history through His Church or about His creation: humans, angels, and the like. Most of the time, and with most people, contemplation will take on more secular forms: reading poetry, solving math puzzles, performing science experiments, etc. So contemplation will take on those natural forms, but there's also another kind that is altogether unique and distinct. This is what the Catholic tradition calls infused contemplation. Infused contemplation is an intellectual habits of ours where, instead of being acquired through our own efforts, is infused into our souls by God with our cooperation. The effects of this divine infusion come through in what the saints call a sublime gaze of our Lord, a perfect--so far as possible--union with God at the deepest level of the soul. The Carthusian order, for instance, one of the more strict religious orders in the world, clearly states that high mission in all caps: "The only goal of the Carthusian way is CONTEMPLATION, by the power of the Spirit, living as unceasingly as possible in the light of the love of God for us, made manifest in Christ." (The Carthusian Order). Through their lives of austerity (viz. fasting, watching, solitude, and intense prayer), they achieve their order's sublime purpose.

But what do those outside religion, and outside of monotheism for the most part, have to say about contemplation? Aristotle, pre-Hellenistic pagan philosopher, locates contemplation as that activity which is most distinctive of human happiness and fulfillment:

If happiness is activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be that of the best thing in us. Whether it be reason or something else that is this element which is thought to be our natural ruler and guide and to take thought of things noble and divine, whether it be itself also divine or only the most divine element in us, the activity of this in accordance with its proper virtue will be perfect happiness. That this activity is contemplative we have already said. (Nichomachean Ethics, Book X, Chapter 7)

Aristotle finds that the telos or goal of the human agent lies chiefly in contemplation because of man's rational nature. That's his function. And though man busies himself with noble and praiseworthy tasks, like fighting wars and working a nine-to-five job for his family, these are only secondary modes of happiness. These activities are performed for the sake of something else, which was already implied. Plato, moreover, thought that through contemplation the soul may ascend to knowledge of the Form of the Good or other divine Forms, allegorizing it in The Republic (viz. "Allegory of the Cave"):

No question, he said. This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed… Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good. (Book VII)

Flammarion engraving (1888) by Anonymous

Both religious and non-religious traditions praise the contemplative dimension as the highest beatitude for the human person. Yet, both traditions also recognize that most people tend to shun that sublime calling. They tend to judge by the senses and see that those who are most happy are those with wealth or honor. Those who manage others rather than those who manage themselves are those to whom the hoi polloi give undue praise. Yet, they are right in saying that our lives cannot be completely dedicated to praying, studying, and the like. We're not celestial, self-sufficient beings who can manage that kind of life completely. We have sensuous--if you want to call it that--needs that need to be met, but what gives? We ought to still try to create a larger sphere in our lives for contemplation. This fulfills us now--to the degree that we can achieve it--and transforms us in the end.

Two Men Observing the Moon (1819-1820) by Caspar David Friedrich

On Genetic Fallacies and Red Herrings 5/12/13

Red Herring

The genetic fallacy generally refers to a type of fallacious reasoning that appeals to how the position is arrived in order to prove for or against a particular claim or a particular argument. The genetic fallacy also goes by other names but the definition generally remains the same: "the fallacy of origins;" "arguing based on the source rather than on the merits of a position;" or as mentioned in a Wikipedia article, "the fallacy of irrelevance." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy also defines the genetic fallacy this way: "A critic uses the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant."

Aristotle, for instance, would have also characterized this type of reasoning under sophistry, a deceptive form of argumentation that focuses on the accidental aspects of an issue rather then on the substance of the issue in order to make the argument look correct when it is not. The genetic fallacy also fulfills Aristotle's notion of sophistry by shifting attention away from the argument to other unrelated aspects of the argument, like the way in which the position came to be held.

The genetic fallacy shows up everywhere in the popular culture and especially in the media. Political debates, television talk shows, and even religious debates include instances of people committing the genetic fallacy ad nauseum. Here are just a few examples:

President Barrack Obama's television advertisement successfully debunked the claim that the study ran by Senator Mitt Romney was independent and non-partisan by referencing Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and the chairman of the study who used to work at Romney's former company (assuming of course that that is all true). But the advertisement did not prove against the claim that "Obama and the liberals will raise taxes on the middle class by $4,000" (0:13 - 0:17). In fact, no mention was made against that claim other than the appeal to the study's partisanship.

In other words, the focus on the study's partisanship distracted the argument away from considering the relevant information needed for proving against the claim that Obama and the liberals will indeed raise taxes on the middle class by $4,000; this is called a red herring. A red herring, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is a "digression that leads the reasoner off the track of considering only relevant information." Red herrings distract the person following an argument from considering important information related to the conclusion of a particular argument.

If, on the other hand, the advertisement was claiming that Obama will not raise taxes on the middle class by $4,000 because partisan groups ran the studies that projected those figures, then the advertisement would be committing the genetic fallacy by basing their conclusions off of the people's backgrounds rather than on more relevant information (like counter-statistics and so forth). In other words, people's backgrounds or the particular associations of which they happen to be a part does not necessarily falsify the statistics they put forward in a study. After all, the evidence they publish may indeed indicate the truth of the matter regardless of their particular backgrounds or reputations.

Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist and outspoken advocate against religion, suggested to the young girl at the podium that she may have only held her beliefs in God because of her native upbringing in the United States. Dawkins then listed a few conditioned claims (0:28 - 0:54) reminding the young girl that if she had been "brought up" in another culture, then she would have never believed in God and would have replaced God with another deity instead. Dawkins, however, only suggests that she rethink her belief in God and never finally tells her that she falsely believes in God.

The fallacy in Dawkins' reasoning involves leaping from the claim that growing up in the United States influenced the young girl's belief in God to therefore concluding that her belief in God's existence is false. The conclusion simply does not follow from the premises because growing up in the United States only incidentally relates to her belief in the truth of God's existence. This is called the genetic fallacy. In all fairness to Dawkins, however, he never explicitly claimed the young girl's belief in God to be false. In fact, it is difficult to tell whether or not Dawkins had even truly advanced an argument, due to the fact that the young girl never asked Dawkins to argue against anything. Nevertheless, Dawkins committed the genetic fallacy by leaping from the young girl's upbringing to concluding her belief in God's existence to be false, which he implicitly concluded at the end of video.