Authors/Thomas Aquinas/physics/L8/lect12

Lecture 12 The first mover is not moved, but is one and perpetual

Latin	English
	Lecture 12 The first mover is not moved, but is one and perpetual.
lib. 8 l. 12 n. 1 Postquam philosophus ostendit quod in iis quae moventur ab alio, non est procedere in infinitum, sed est devenire ad aliquod primum, quod vel est immobile vel movet seipsum: et ostendit ulterius quod moventis seipsum una pars est movens immobile, et sic utrobique accidit quod primum movens sit immobile; quia tamen in moventibus se quae sunt apud nos, scilicet animalibus corruptibilibus, contingit quod pars movens in movente seipsum est corruptibilis et movetur per accidens, scilicet anima: vult hic ostendere quod primum movens est incorruptibile, et non movetur nec per se nec per accidens. Et circa hoc duo facit: primo proponit quod intendit; secundo probat, ibi: sit autem si aliquis velit et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo resumit ea quae supra ostensa sunt; secundo praetermittit quoddam quod videbatur posse valere ad suum propositum, ibi: unumquodque igitur etc.; tertio exponit suum propositum, ibi: quoniam autem necessarium est esse et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod supra ostensum est quod motus semper est et nunquam deficit: et quia omnis motus est ab aliquo movente, in moventibus autem non est procedere in infinitum, necesse est esse aliquod primum movens. Et quia nondum probatum est quod primum movens sit unum, ideo sub dubio derelinquit utrum sit unum vel plura. Et ulterius ostensum est quod primum movens est immobile, sive statim ascendendo de motis ad moventia perveniatur ad primum immobile, sive perveniatur ad primum movens seipsum, cuius una pars est movens immobile.	1069. Having shown that in things moved by another there is not a process to infinity but a first must be reached which is either immobile or a mover of self, and having shown that, of a thing that moves itself, one part is an immobile mover, and that, consequently, in either case there is a first mover that is immobile, now, because among self-movers which exist among us, namely, perishable animals, it happens that the motion-causing part in the thing which moves itself is perishable and moved per accidens, namely, the soul, the Philosopher wishes to show here that the first mover is imperishable and is not moved either per se or per accidens. About this he does two things: First he proposes what he intends; Secondly, he proves it, at 1072. About the first he does three things: First he reviews what has been previously manifested; Secondly, he omits something that seemed useful for his proposition, at 1070; Thirdly, he explains his proposition, at 1071, He says therefore First (838 258 b10) that it was shown above that motion always exists and never fails. And since all motion is from a mover, and in movers there is not a process to infinity, it is necessary that there be a first mover. And since it has not yet been proved that the first mover is one, he accordingly lets it remain doubtful whether it is one or many. Further, it has been shown that the first mover is immobile, whether by ascending from moved to movers one immediately reaches a first immobile mover, or whether what is reached is a first mover that moves itself, one part of which is an immobile mover.
lib. 8 l. 12 n. 2 Fuit autem quorundam positio, quod omnia principia moventia in iis quae movent seipsa, sunt perpetua: posuit enim Plato omnes animas animalium perpetuas. Et si vera esset haec opinio, iam statim Aristoteles haberet propositum quantum ad hoc quod primum movens sit perpetuum. Sed opinio Aristotelis est, quod de partibus animae solus intellectus est incorruptibilis; cum tamen etiam aliae partes animae sint moventes. Et ideo hoc consequenter praetermittit, dicens: unumquodque igitur et cetera. Et dicit quod ad rationem quae prae manibus habetur, nihil pertinet an unumquodque principiorum quae movent et sunt immobilia, sit perpetuum, quamvis hoc aliqui posuerunt, ponentes omnes animas incorruptibiles. Et dicit hoc non esse ad praesentem rationem, quia hoc non supposito, habebit propositum.	1070. Some have opined that all moving principles in things that move themselves are imperishable, for Plato posited all the souls of animals to be perpetual. And if this opinion were true, Aristotle would have his proposition clinched at once, so far as the first mover’s being eternal is concerned. But the opinion of Aristotle is that among the parts of the soul, only the intellect is imperishable, even though other parts of the soul are movers. Consequently he omits this at (839 258 b12) where he says that as far as the present argument is concerned it is of no moment whether each of the principles that move themselves and are immobile is imperishable, even though some have posited this by positing that all souls are imperishable. And he says that this does not affect the present argument, because he will prove his proposition without using this supposition.
lib. 8 l. 12 n. 3 Deinde cum dicit: quoniam autem necessarium etc., exponit quid intendit probare. Et dicit quod considerando ea quae sequuntur, manifestum potest esse quod, etsi non omne movens immobile sit perpetuum, necesse est tamen esse aliquid immobile, ita quod nullo modo ab extrinseco moveatur, nec simpliciter nec per accidens, et tamen sit motivum alterius. Dicit autem ab omni exterius mutatione, non intendens excludere motum, idest operationem, quae est in operante, prout intelligere dicitur motus, et prout appetitus movetur ab appetibili. Huiusmodi enim motus non excluditur a primo movente de quo intendit.	1071. Then at (840 258 b13) he explains what he intends to prove. And he says that by considering the things that follow, it can be plain that even though not every immobile mover is imperishable, there must be something immobile in such a way that it is no way moved from without, either absolutely or per accidens, and yet is a mover of something else. When he says “immobile with respect to any change from without,” he does not mean to exclude a motion, i.e., an operation, which is in the one operating in the sense that to understand is called a “motion,” and in the sense that the appetite is moved by the desirable object. A motion of this sort is not excluded from the first mover which Aristotle is discussing.
lib. 8 l. 12 n. 4 Deinde cum dicit: sit autem si aliquis etc., probat quod dixerat, scilicet quod sit aliquod primum movens perpetuum et penitus immobile. Et primo probat hoc per moventia se, quae quandoque sunt et quandoque non sunt; secundo per principia moventia, quae quandoque movent et quandoque non movent, ibi: et iterum considerans et cetera. Circa primum tria facit: primo ostendit quod oportet esse aliquod primum movens perpetuum; secundo quod tale movens magis debet esse unum quam plura, ibi: unum autem magis etc.; tertio ostendit utrumque simul, scilicet quod est unum primum movens et perpetuum, ibi: manifestum igitur ex his et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo excludit quandam rationem, per quam aliquis posset niti ad probandum propositum; secundo procedit ad propositum ostendendum, ibi: manifestum est enim et cetera.	1072. Then at (841 258 b16) he proves what he had said, namely, that there exists a first mover that is eternal and entirely immobile. First he proves this through self-movers that at one time exist and at another time do not; Secondly, through moving principles which sometimes are causing motion and sometimes not, (L. 13). About the first he does three things: First he shows that there must be a first mover that is eternal; Secondly, that such a mover should be one rather than many, at 1075; Thirdly, he shows both at once, i.e., that there is one first mover and that it is eternal, at 1076. About the first he does two things: First he rejects an argument by which some could try to prove this proposition; Secondly, he goes on to explain his proposition, at 1074.
lib. 8 l. 12 n. 5 Posset autem aliquis sic procedere. Omne quod non potest quandoque esse et quandoque non esse, est perpetuum: sed primum movens, cum sit immobile, ut ostensum est, non potest quandoque esse et quandoque non esse; quia quod quandoque est et quandoque non est, generatur et corrumpitur; quod autem generatur et corrumpitur, movetur: ergo primum movens est perpetuum. Aristoteles autem de hac ratione non curat: quia potest aliquis dicere si vult, quod in quibusdam contingit quod quandoque sint et quandoque non sint, absque hoc quod generentur et corrumpantur per se loquendo, et per consequens absque hoc quod per se moveantur. Necesse est enim, si aliquid impartibile, quod scilicet non sit compositum ex materia et forma, quandoque sic est et quandoque non est, quod omne tale sine mutatione sui quandoque sit et quandoque non sit; sicut potest dici de puncto et de albedine et de quolibet huiusmodi: ostensum est enim in sexto quod omne quod movetur est partibile, et in VII Metaphys. quod omne quod generatur est compositum ex materia et forma. Huiusmodi quidem igitur impartibilia per se quidem non generantur neque mutantur, sed per accidens, generatis aut mutatis aliis. Ex quo etiam patet quod si aliquid neque per se neque per accidens movetur, quod illud est perpetuum: et si est perpetuum, neque per accidens neque per se movetur, secundum hoc quod est perpetuum. Si ergo conceditur esse contingens quod aliquid quandoque sit et quandoque non sit, absque eo quod generetur et corrumpatur; etiam et hoc concedatur esse contingens, quod quaedam principia moventia immobilia, ita tamen quod possint moveri per accidens, quandoque sint et quandoque non sint. Nequaquam tamen possibile est omnia principia moventia et immobilia talia esse, ut quandoque sint et quandoque non sint.	1073. Now, someone could proceed as follows (841 258 b16): Whatever cannot at one time be and at another not be is eternal; but the first mover, since it is immobile, as has been shown above, cannot be at one time and not be at another time, for whatever is such is generated and ceases to be, which involves its being moved. Therefore, the first mover is eternal. But Aristotle does not have any use for this argument, because someone could say, if he wants, that in some things it happens that at one time they exist and at another time they do not, without their being generated or ceasing to be, speaking per se, and consequently without their being moved per se. For if something not divisible into parts, which is, namely, not composed of matter and form, is at one time in a certain way, and at another time is not, then necessarily every such thing—without any self-change—does at one time exist and at another time not exist, as may be said of a point, and of whiteness, and of anything of this sort, for it has been shown in Book VI that whatever is moved can be divided into parts, and in Metaphysics VII that whatever is generated is composed of matter and form. Such non-divisible things, therefore, are neither generated nor changed per se, but per accidens, when other things are generated or changed. From this it is also plain that if something is moved neither per se nor per accidens, it is eternal; and that if it is eternal, it is moved neither per se nor per accidens, insofar as it is eternal. If, therefore, it is conceded to be contingent for something to exist at one time and not at another without its being generated or ceasing to be, then let it also be conceded to be contingent that certain immobile moving principles, which are yet mobile per accidens, exist at one time and do not exist at another. Nevertheless it is not at all possible that all such principles which are movers and immobile be such that they exist at one time and not exist at another.
lib. 8 l. 12 n. 6 Deinde cum dicit: manifestum est enim etc., ostendit propositum. Et dicit quod si quaedam moventia seipsa quandoque sunt et quandoque non sunt, necesse est quod sit aliqua causa generationis et corruptionis ipsorum, qua quandoque sunt et quandoque non sunt: quia omne quod movetur, habet causam sui motus; quod autem quandoque est et quandoque non est, si sit compositum, generatur et corrumpitur. Movens autem seipsum necesse est quod habeat magnitudinem, quia movetur, et ostensum est in sexto quod nihil impartibile movetur. Sed ex dictis non potest haberi quod sit necessarium movens habere magnitudinem, et sic non movetur per se, si quandoque sit et quandoque non sit. Si autem generationis et corruptionis eorum quae movent seipsa, est aliqua causa, oportet quod etiam huius sit aliqua causa, quod eorum generatio et corruptio perpetue continuatur. Non autem potest dici quod huius continuitatis causa sit aliquod illorum immobilium quae non semper sunt: neque etiam potest dici quod sempiternae generationis et corruptionis quorundam moventium seipsa, sint causa quaedam moventia immobilia quae non semper sunt, et aliorum alia. Et hoc exponit subdens, quod huius continuae et sempiternae generationis non potest esse causa neque unum ipsorum neque omnia. Et quod unum non possit esse causa, sic ostendit: quia illud quod non est semper, non potest esse causa eius quod est semper perpetuum et ex necessitate. Quod autem omnia non possint esse causa, ostendit per hoc quod omnia huiusmodi principia corruptibilia, si generatio est perpetua, sunt infinita et non simul sunt: impossibile est autem unum effectum dependere ex infinitis causis. Et iterum ea quae non simul sunt, non possunt esse causa alicuius; licet possit esse quod eorum quae non simul sunt, quaedam disponant et quaedam causent, ut patet in guttis successive cadentibus, quae causant lapidis effossionem: sed si aliqua multa sunt directe causa alicuius, oportet quod simul sint. Sic igitur manifestum est quod si sint mille millia principia moventia et immobilia; et si sint etiam multa quae moveant seipsa, quorum quaedam corrumpantur et alia generentur; et inter ista, quaedam sint mobilia et quaedam moventia: nihilominus tamen oportet esse aliquid super omnia, quod sua virtute contineat omnia quae praedicto modo generantur et corrumpuntur: quod quidem sit causa continuae mutationis ipsorum, per quam quandoque sunt et quandoque non sunt; et per quam haec sunt causa generationis et motus his et haec aliis: quia omne generans est causa generationis generato, sed tamen generantia corruptibilia habent quod sint causa generationis, ab aliquo primo incorruptibili. Si ergo motus, per quem quaedam quandoque sunt et quandoque non sunt, est perpetuus, ut supra ostensum est; et effectus perpetuus non potest esse nisi a causa perpetua: necesse est quod primum movens sit perpetuum, si est unum; et si sunt plura prima moventia, quod etiam illa plura sint perpetua.	1074. Then at (842 258 b22) he proves his proposition. And he says that if some things which move themselves exist at one time and not at another, then there must be a cause of their generation and ceasing-to-be, by virtue of which they exist at one time and do not exist at another, because whatever is moved has a cause of its motion. But what exists at one time and not at another, if it is a composite, is generated and ceases-to-be. Now, a thing that moves itself must possess magnitude, since it is moved, and it has been shown in Book VI that nothing indivisible into parts is moved. But from the foregoing it cannot be held that it is necessary for the mover to have magnitude, and thus it is not moved per se, if it exists at one time and does not exist at another. But if there is a cause of the generation and perishing of things that move themselves, then there must also be a cause to account for their generation and perishing being continued forever. But it cannot be said that the cause of this continuity is one of those immobiles that do not always exist, nor can it be said that the cause of the eternal generation and perishing of some things that move themselves are certain immobile movers which do not always exist, and of that of others, certain others. And he explains this when he says that not one, nor all of them, can be the cause of this continuous and eternal generation. That one of them cannot be the cause he thus proves: What does not exist forever cannot be the cause of what is forever perpetual and necessary. That all cannot be the cause he proves for the reason that all such perishable principles, if generation is perpetual, are infinite and do not all exist at once. But it is impossible for one effect to depend on an infinitude of causes. And again, things that do not exist at once cannot be the cause of one thing, although it could be said that when things do not exist all at once, some dispose and some cause, as is plain with respect to drops that fall successively and wear away a stone. But if a number of things are a direct cause of anything, they must exist all together. Accordingly, therefore, it is manifest that if there are a million principles that are movers and immobile, and if there are many things that move themselves, of which some perish and others come to be, and among these, some are mobile and some movers, nevertheless there must be something above all of them that by its power contains all the things which are generated and perish in the above-mentioned way and which would be the cause of the continual change affecting them by which they sometimes are and sometimes are not and through which these latter are the cause of coming-to-be and of motion for others, and these for yet others. For every generator is a cause of generation to the thing generated, but it is from some imperishable first principle that perishable generators possess the characteristic of being causes of generation. If, therefore, the motion through which some things at one time exist and at another do not is perpetual, as has been shown above, and a perpetual effect cannot exist except from a perpetual cause, then, necessarily, the first mover is perpetual, if it is one; and if there are more than one first mover, they too are perpetual.
lib. 8 l. 12 n. 7 Deinde cum dicit: unum autem magis etc., ostendit quod magis debeat poni unum principium perpetuum quam multa. Et dicit quod sicut oportet existimare magis esse principia finita quam infinita, ita oportet existimare quod sit magis unum primum principium quam plura. Si enim eadem accidant vel consequantur in effectibus ex positione finitorum principiorum, quae ex positione infinitorum, magis est accipiendum quod sint principia finita quam infinita: quia in his quae sunt secundum naturam, semper est magis accipiendum illud quod est melius, si sit possibile, quia ea quae sunt secundum naturam, sunt optime disposita; melius autem est finitum principium quam infinitum, et unum quam multa. Sufficit autem ad causandum perpetuitatem motus, quod sit unum primum principium immobile, si sit perpetuum: non ergo sunt ponenda plura prima principia.	1075. Then at (843 259 a8) he shows that one perpetual principle ought to be posited rather than many. And he says that just as finite principles ought to be preferred to infinite, so one first principle rather than many. For if the same effects happen or follow from positing finite principles as from positing infinite principles, one should assume that the principles are finite rather than infinite, because in things that are according to nature, the preference must be given to what is better, if it is possible, because things that are according to nature are disposed the best. Now, a finite principle is better than an infinite one, and one better than many. But one first immobile principle, if it is perpetual, is sufficient for causing the perpetuity of motion. Therefore, many first principles should not be posited.
lib. 8 l. 12 n. 8 Deinde cum dicit: manifestum igitur ex his etc., concludit ex praedictis quod necesse est esse aliquod unum primum movens et perpetuum. Et quamvis hoc ex superioribus sufficienter probatum videatur, posset tamen aliquis calumniose dicere, quod causa continuitatis generationis est aliquod primum movens seipsum perpetuum: sed motor illius moventis seipsum, non est perpetuum et unum, sed movetur a diversis moventibus, quorum quaedam corrumpuntur et quaedam generantur. Sed hoc intendit excludere: quia si motus est perpetuus, ut supra probaverat, necesse est quod motus primi moventis seipsum, quod ponitur causa totius perpetuitatis motus, sit sempiternus et continuus: si enim non esset continuus, non esset sempiternus. Sed quod consequenter est, non est continuum: ad hoc autem quod motus sit continuus, necesse est quod sit unus: ad hoc vero quod sit unus, necesse est quod sit ab uno movente et unius mobilis. Si vero sit aliud et aliud movens, non erit totus motus continuus, sed consequenter se habens. Necesse est ergo omnino quod primum movens sit unum et perpetuum. Movens autem immobile quod movetur per accidens, non est perpetuum, ut supra dictum est. Relinquitur ergo quod primum movens sit omnino immobile, et per se et per accidens.	1076. Then at (844 259 a13) he concludes from the foregoing that it is necessary that there be one first mover which is imperishable. And although this seems to be sufficiently proved from the foregoing, yet someone could cavil that the cause of the continuity of generation is a perpetual first mover of self, but the mover of that is not perpetual and one but moved by diverse movers, of which some cease to be and some come to be. But this he intends to dismiss, because if motion is perpetual, as he had proved above, then necessarily the motion of the first mover of self, which is posited as the cause of the entire perpetuity of motion, is eternal and continuous, for if it were not continuous, it would not be eternal. However, what is successive is not continuous, whereas in order that a motion be continuous it must be one; and in order to be one, it must be from one mover and in one mobile. But if the mover is other and other, the motion will not be a whole continuous motion, but a successive one. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the first mover be one and perpetual. But an immobile mover that is moved per accidens is not perpetual, as has been said above. It remains, therefore, that the first mover is utterly immobile, both per se and per accidens.