Edward Feser, American Catholic philosopher and Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College, discusses the Aristotelean argument from motion, potentiality and actuality, hierarchical causal series, existence of an actual infinite, causality, essence and existence, and the argument from contingency.
The Aristotelean argument from motion argues for the existence of God as a purely actual actualizer.
Potentiality is a real quality of objects, distinct from actuality and not dependent on an actual infinite.
The argument from motion does not rely on the idea of actual infinites or a temporal regress.
Aquinas's argument emphasizes the actualization of potentiality in both material and non-material beings.
Deep dives
The Argument from Motion
The argument from motion is a philosophical argument that discusses the existence of God. It starts with the idea that change is the actualization of potential, meaning that objects have the potential to be different than they currently are. The argument addresses objections from philosophers like Parmenides, who denied the possibility of change. It argues that for something to be actualized, there must be something already actual that makes it happen. This leads to a hierarchical causal series, where each level of reality is actualized by something already actual. The argument concludes that there must be a bottom level of reality, a purely actual actualizer, that can cause without being caused. This is identified as a form of God, the ultimate explanation for existence.
The Reality of Potentiality
The argument acknowledges that potentiality is a real quality of objects. Potentiality refers to the capacity of an object to become something different. For example, a hot coffee has the potential to become cold. Potentiality is not the same as nothingness, as it represents a middle ground reality between actuality and nothingness. While there might be an infinite number of potential states for an object, it does not imply the existence of an actual infinite. The argument distinguishes between potentiality as a real quality and actuality as a different kind of reality. Therefore, acknowledging an infinite number of potentialities does not conflict with the impossibility of an actual infinite.
Universality of the Argument
The argument discussed in the podcast is not dependent on the idea of actual infinites. While actual infinites play a role in some arguments for God's existence, this specific argument does not rely on them. The argument focuses on the hierarchical causal series, where each level of reality is actualized by something already actual. The possibility of an actual infinite or the existence of an infinite past in time is not essential to this argument. The argument prioritizes the concept of potentiality and actuality to explain the existence of a purely actual actualizer, which is identified as a form of God.
The Argument from Motion Illustrated
The Argument from Motion explains that objects have the potential to be different from what they currently are. This potentiality is actualized by something already actual. The argument uses examples like a stick moving a stone or a body in motion to demonstrate the hierarchical causal series. Each level of reality is actualized by something existing simultaneously. The argument does not rely on the existence of actual infinites and does not depend on a temporal regress. It concludes that there must be a purely actual actualizer that serves as the ultimate explanation for the existence of things, a concept similar to the idea of God.
The Distinction Between Essence and Existence
Aquinas introduces the distinction between essence and existence, arguing that the existence of an object is distinct from its essence or nature. He posits that existence actualizes the potentiality of an object's essence. This distinction holds true for both material objects and non-material beings, such as angels. Even if one accepts the B-theory of time, where the universe is seen as a four-dimensional block, this does not undermine the argument for an unmoved mover. The existence of the universe, with its distinct essence, still requires an external actualizer of its existence.
The Analysis of Change and Potentiality
Aquinas's argument for an unmoved mover rests on the idea of the actualization of potentiality. This concept extends beyond just physical change and applies to any actualization of potential. Even if the B-theory of time is accepted, this core idea remains intact. The existence of the universe, with its potentialities, would still necessitate an external actualizer to bring those potentialities into actuality. The B-theory of time does not undermine the need for an unmoved mover.
The Objection of an Infinite Number of Real Things
One objection raised is the idea that accepting potential properties as real would imply an infinite number of real properties. This objection draws on the yellow chair example, arguing that even if the B-theory of time is true, the yellow chair's future potential to remain yellow does not imply an infinite number of potential properties. Aquinas distinguishes between actualizing potentialities and the essence of an object. The objection does not directly challenge the core idea of the argument, as it focuses on potential properties rather than the actualization of potentials.
