Philosophy Now Forum

aristotles logic supposed that all moving things are moved by an unmoving thing.if this is true does it split existance .existance would have to have existed as the mover before the moving existance existed.so the unmoving mover is more factual than the moved thing.making the moved thing fiction by the logic of the unmoving thing.

half the distance

-Imp

jackles wrote:aristotles logic supposed that all moving things are moved by an unmoving thing.if this is true does it split existance .existance would have to have existed as the mover before the moving existance existed.so the unmoving mover is more factual than the moved thing.making the moved thing fiction by the logic of the unmoving thing.

As to whether the unmoved mover is "more real" than the moving things we normally experience is impossible to say. There is more evidence for moved things in the world (observation) than an unmoved mover. We can see things move, but no one has ever seen an unmoved mover.

When we talk about facts in philosophy we usually means facts in relation to cause and effects that we can observe. The unmoved mover can never be a "fact" in observational terms. The unmoved mover is a type of causal explanation because it is postulated as a first cause. But is is only a 'type' of causal explanation. It is not of the same type of causation that science deals with. Facts are not related to first causes because we can never see a first cause for anything no matter how hard we look.

if thats true ginkgo are minds are fictional and can only except fictional things as fact.scientific laws for instance would be fictional facts.relativity would be a fictional fact.or an illusional fact.so the brain would be an illusion maker and a maker of illusional facts to suit that illusion in side a consciouse real fact thus spliting existance into observer and object or observer and the science of objects.as in relativity and the observers stationary position in that regs the speed of light.