3) there is no knowledge of us by God. He only knows himself — Gregory
What definition of Deism are you working with? — hairy belly
He always refers to many Gods, many divine things and many 'unmoved movers'. — hairy belly
But for a living being, if we eliminate action, and a fortiori creative action, what remains save contemplation? It follows that the activity of God, which is transcendent in blessedness, is the activity of contemplation; and therefore among human activities that which is most akin to the divine activity of contemplation will be the greatest source of happiness (1178b8)
Indeed it seems that Eudoxus took a good line in advocating the claims of pleasure to the prize of highest excellence, when he held that the fact that pleasure, though a good, is not praised, is an indication that it is superior to the things we praise, as God and the Good are, because they are the standards to which everything else is referred (1101b6)
Hence God (o Theos) enjoys a single simple pleasure perpetually. For there is not only an activity of motion: but also an activity of immobility, and there is essentially a truer pleasure in rest than in motion (1154b9)
For existence is good for the virtuous man; and everyone wishes his own good: no one would choose to possess every good in the world on condition of becoming somebody else (for God possesses the good even as it is) (1166a5)
Hence it is actuality rather than potentiality that is held to be the divine possession of rational thought, and its active contemplation is that which is most pleasant and best. If, then, the happiness which God always enjoys is as great as that which we enjoy sometimes, it is marvellous; and if it is greater, this is still more marvellous. Nevertheless it is so. Moreover, life belongs to God. For the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and the essential actuality of God is life most good and eternal. We hold, then, that God is a living being, eternal, most good; and therefore life and a continuous eternal existence belong to God; for that is what God is (Meta.1072b)
Understanding ancient philosophical text is hard in the sense of sharing common ideas with the ancient writer through language — Gregory
Some hold that the soul is divisible, and that one part thinks, another desires. If, then, its nature admits of its being divided, what can it be that holds the parts together? Surely not the body; on the contrary it seems rather to be the soul that holds the body together; at any rate when the soul departs the body disintegrates and decays (411b24)
Not always, in some cases he has "God", that could be interpreted as referring to something like a superordinate divinity, e.g., "the activity of God" (he tou Theou energeia) as in Nicomachean Ethics: — Apollodorus
And I can say, 'man has failed'. It doesn't mean I refer to a single particular man, I just use a collective noun. Just before your first example, he refers to gods while speaking on the same topic, so, no it can't be interpreted like you said it can. Aristotle holds there are many gods. Not a single god. What stands above all, as the first cause, is 'Nous'. — hairy belly
But this is what we are investigating—what is the starting-point of motion in the spirit? The answer then is clear: as in the universe, so there, everything is moved by God; for in a manner the divine element in us is the cause of all our motions. And the starting-point of reason is not reason but something superior to reason. What, then, could be superior even to knowledge and to intellect, except God? (Eud. 1248a)
This is therefore the case in regard to the faculty of contemplation. For God is not a ruler in the sense of issuing commands, but is the End as a means to which wisdom gives commands (and the term 'End' has two meanings, but these have been distinguished elsewhere); since clearly God is in need of nothing. Therefore whatever mode of choosing and of acquiring things good by nature—whether goods of body or wealth or friends or the other goods—will best promote the contemplation of God, that is the best mode, and that standard is the finest; [20] and any mode of choice and acquisition that either through deficiency or excess hinders us from serving and from contemplating God—that is a bad one (Eud.1249b)
As I wrote, it's the first cause, which, ironically, is also a 'final cause'. — hairy belly
In theology 'God', as in a single God, is usually used for the sole creator God of monotheist religions. Aristotle had no such concept. His 'God', or 'Nous', was neither the sole god, nor a creator. As I wrote, it's the first cause, which, ironically, is also a 'final cause'. — hairy belly
His 'God', or 'Nous', was neither the sole god, nor a creator. — hairy belly
how many Gods are first principle, prime mover, and ultimate cause? — Apollodorus
As I understand Aristotle, there's one first principle which is Divine, perfect and alive. It's also worthy of reverence. That doesn't mean he believes in a single god or in a single divine thing. It just means that he holds there's a hierarchy between divine things. — hairy belly
The Greeks seem to be divided between materialists and idealists. Plato, Parmenides, the Skeptics, all seem to be about the life of the mind. Those who posited different material substances as the cause of the world seemed to promote a materialistic agenda. Aristotle was different — Gregory
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.