On Aristotle and Aquinas’ Prime Mover Argument (Aquinas 101) #shorts

[jacob]

Just started following this channel and it took me a minute to recognize Fr. Little—he was a TA for a modern philosophy course at UVA I took a few years ago. Really intelligent and nice man, one of the best teachers that I had during undergrad.

[Joshharrison]

I am now hypnotized and cannot escape this video

[mrpie]

The cause of the motion in your system isn't "your hand", but rather the force _applied_ to the watch by the motion of your hand - the force which the motion of your hand carries over to the motion of the watch. The force due to the motion of your hand is larger than that due to the motion of the watch, because shortly the velocity of the watch decreases (the difference in force is in proportion to difference in energy, such that energy is lost from the motion of the watch due to heat, sound, and friction in its resistance with the air around it). After its velocity sufficiently decreases, the watch then moves back (like a swing) in the direction of its previous position where (gravitational) potential energy is minimised. This position is called the "equilibrium position", and, when the watch rests in this position, then the chain of the watch is vertical. The watch moves in the manner of a moving pendulum because it is an oscillation around that equilibrium position, and is always being pulled to its direction even if each swing overcorrects itself and has to swing back. This explains the motion of the watch, both the swing and return-swing behaviour we tend to observe.

A visual graph may be plotted in order to record the relationship between the position (in space) of the watch during its motion, and the time (in seconds) elapsed since moving from some selected position - and, funnily enough, doing the same for an orbit produces a graph with the same structure, for any orbit (so, orbits resemble oscillations being pulled in the direction of an equilibrium position, such as the planet earth orbiting the sun and being pulled in the direction of the sun's position). Thus, one benefit of this alternative explanation is that it relates the motion of a pendulum to that of an orbit, in terms of oscillation and a shared graph. Also, graphs are simply ordered values of _functions_ visualised geometrically on a coordinate system, and functions (describing oscillations, but also describing any general behaviour) are both well-studied and also well-understood in modern mathematics (the study of a theory of functions is called "analysis"). Physicists, mathematicians and experts, form accurate predictions (like successful prophets) of these behaviours studied in their enormous areas of interest - so much that it is common to rely upon them.

Therefore, it seems to me that the information written above supplies a far more appropriate explanation of the motion of the watch (even though it is _still_ not fully mathematically precise or "rigorous"). Your explanation of the motion of the watch is less appropriate, and to draw an analogy, it is similar to explaining that what causes a pile of books to stand upright is the bottom book - which intuitively is very imprecise. Personally, I would suggest finding a way in which to make Thomistic schools of theology more consistent with modern science and mathematics, as Aquinas himself attempted to do between Christianity and a combination of Augustinian and Aristotelian philosophies.

[bb]

The arguments for this by both philosophers is something more people need to read and learn 😁

[cameronbell]

I'm Catholic, so don't think my intentions are bad here. These forms of argumentation are weak in today's climate. It's all well and good appealing to what cannot explained therefore God. But, it's not exactly a strong argument. Science demands testable arguments, thus appealling to these sorts arguments in the video do no favours. It's time Catholics utilized modern arguments rather than rely on outdated arguments which aren't appropriate for the current climate. Scientists may well be able to explain the phenomenon without appeal to God in the future as they have with evolution. The fact we couldn't explain how humans got here a couple hundred years ago was an argument from design by Christians, rightly, it's no longer appropriate and the same may be said about the prime mover argument.