critically evaluate aristotle’s views on the prime mover.

introduction - explain

aristotle's prime mover (pm) is his explanation for the teleology he saw in the world, an 'uncaused causer' and 'unmoved mover' directing everything towards its telos. went on to influence classical theist conceptions of god in the abrahamic religions.

introduction - strengths

well suited to a modern multifaith/secular world, more logically coherent than plato's form of the good, and is the middle way between strict rationalism and strict empiricism

introduction - weaknesses

teleology is 'artificially imposed', it's internally contradictory, and commits the fallacy of composition

introduction - thesis

aristotle's views on the prime mover are unconvincing

para 1 - point

teleology is "artificially imposed"

para 1 - explain

lots of evidence of dysteleology. sartre's new wave of existentialism - the universe is chaotic, the idea of order is an illusory coping mechanism for the fact that we must create our own meaning or die. the concept of a 'final cause' for anything is also outdated, dubious, and damaging (caroline criado perez's invisible women, data bias and belief that final cause = man even today)

para 1 - counterpoint

not too outdated - works well for a multifaith/secular modern world. pm is a reasonable way to seek a final cause for the changes in all things as it lacks the added complications of religious models, does not interact with the world, only contemplates itself, etc

para 1 - refute & evaluate

science is the most modern - dawkins (infl. by darwin's evolution) would argue that teleology is an illusion caused by "selfish genes"/humans being 'reproductive robots'. evo is based on empiricism and falsifiable science (eg fossil record showing change over time + no observations of organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously)

para 2 - point

contradicts aristotle's own emphasis on empiricism

para 2 - explain

aristotle critiqued plato's rationalism but the pm seems very similar to the form of the good - transcendent, external, immutable, and accessible via reasoning

para 2 - counterpoint

aristotle arguably makes less of a jump than plato in arriving at infinite concepts - he traced change back infinitely due to potentiality (everything finite must have another cause), the only explanation for a first cause must be outside this realm. whereas it is more difficult to see plato's logical steps from change/corruptibility towards the necessary & perfect realm of the forms. aristotle = less hypocritical as he used empirically based deduction, not purely rational methods

para 2 - refute & evaluate

whether or not aristotle's hypocrisy proves him any more correct or incorrect/his jump is smaller than plato's, it does weaken his argument and begins to undermine his whole general philosophy that everything is grounded in sense-experience. he resorts to clarifying what he cannot explain by unempirical and spiritual means, with a philosophy he previously criticised massively

para 3 - point

the argument commits the fallacy of composition (deriving the whole from part)

para 3 - explain

empirical 'evidence' of some teleology in the world does not necessarily mean that everything must be drawn to a supreme actuality/final cause

para 3 - counterpoint

this line of reasoning seems to disregard scientific breakthrough as well as religious hypotheses - also senses can be deceived, should not be overly relied on as it can become reductionist

para 3 - refute & evaluate

supported by kant - we can't logically reason from parts to a whole like that, we have no knowledge of things "ding an sich" (in themselves) as our knowledge is inherently subjective. we must rely on falsifiable scientific empiricism

conclusion

although aristotle's pm may have strengths that plato's form of the good lacks, this does not make it the best or even a coherent explanation. it is based on scientific flaws and internal contradictions, and therefore is unconvincing