Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that An eternally unchanging first cause can cause an eternally constant motion (such as the rotation of a heavenly sphere) by serving as a final cause — an object of desire

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A final cause produces motion only by being cognized or represented by the moved subject, which requires the subject to have intentional mental states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Heavenly spheres, as physical objects, lack the cognitive apparatus necessary to represent an object of desire and orient motion toward it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the final cause model transplanted from Aristotelian ethics to cosmology commits a category error by attributing appetitive cognition to non-minded bodies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's regularity theory establishes that causal relations require observable contiguity and succession between cause and effect across instances.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An eternally unchanging cause that never varies cannot be distinguished, on empirical grounds, from a mere constant background condition rather than an active cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The inference from eternal constancy of the First Cause to its causal efficacy therefore smuggles in a rationalist notion of necessary causation that begs the question against empiricist accounts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The existence of motion presupposes a first cause that is pure actuality and cannot itself be changed or moved
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An eternally unchanging cause cannot directly produce changing motions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A cause that is eternally desired by a moved object can produce an eternally constant motion without itself changing
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42