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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Aristotle's cosmological argument in Physics 8.5 may be r... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Aristotle's cosmological argument in Physics 8.5 may be read as proving the existence of both an unmoved mover and a self-moved soul

    CausationNatural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Proclus' derivation of a self-moved soul from an unmoved intellect may have predisposed readers to interpret Aristotle's Physics 8.5 argument as implying both
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the premises of the ontological argument for immortality are implied by Aristotle's analysis of movement, then Aristotle's cosmological argument carries broader implications than a proof of an unmoved mover alone
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle explicitly distinguishes the unmoved mover from self-moved souls in Physics 8.6, assigning them categorically different causal roles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reading Physics 8.5 as proving both conflates Aristotle's own argument with Neoplatonic interpolations introduced centuries after the text was composed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Proclus' derivation operates within a henological framework alien to Aristotle's hylomorphic ontology, making cross-tradition inference methodologically unsound.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The soul's self-motion in Plato's Phaedrus serves as proof of immortality, but Aristotle explicitly rejects soul-as-self-mover in De Anima 1.3, undermining the interpretive bridge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural TheologyCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Afterlife & Death2 linked

    Related

    Aristotle explicitly distinguishes the unmoved mover from self-moved souls in Ph...If the premises of the ontological argument for immortality are implied by Arist...Proclus' derivation of a self-moved soul from an unmoved intellect may have pred...Proclus' derivation operates within a henological framework alien to Aristotle's...
    +2 moreShow less
    Reading Physics 8.5 as proving both conflates Aristotle's own argument with Neop...The soul's self-motion in Plato's Phaedrus serves as proof of immortality, but A...

    Similar

    Proclus' derivation of a self-moved soul from an unmoved intellect may...84%If the premises of the ontological argument for immortality are implie...82%The premises of the ontological argument for the immortality of the so...78%It would be contradictory for a person to affirm the premises of a ded...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: byzantine-philosophy
    View source passageHide passage
    Even if we cannot definitively clear him of this charge, we may be able to point to extenuating circumstances. The Neoplatonic commentators, too, espouse the ontological argument for the immortality of the soul. They also accept Aristotle’s analysis of movement as necessarily an irreflexive relation; they believe, however, that “movement” in this context refers exclusively to physical movement, and thus that the analysis does not concern the self-movement of the soul. That is to say, they affirm
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit