circular motion is neither implied by the soul nor by the body. We ought to conclude therefore that it is unjustified, and likely, a mistaken idea. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I said, it is obvious that you have it backward, and I'm beginning to think you are doing it on purpose.

Aristotle in De Caelo simply states that there is no circular motion of an infinite body. Finite bodies like the universe can and do have circular (or apparently circular) motion as Aristotle himself says!

The real issue is who or what moves something that has circular motion or motion in general. In the case of the heaven, it is God a.k.a. the Unmoved Mover who causes that movement.

De Anima is a separate discussion about the view that the soul is a self-moving entity. Aristotle takes up the definition of soul as “the primary actuality of a natural body with organs” and argues that this contradicts the claim that the soul is (a) a magnitude and (b) self-moving.

It is in this context that Aristotle mentions the creation account in the Timaeus, according to which the ensouled universe is given a revolving motion by God:

He spun it round uniformly in the same spot and within itself and made it move revolving in a circle .... And in the midst thereof He set Soul, which He stretched throughout the whole of it, and therewith He enveloped also the exterior of its body; and as a Circle revolving in a circle He established one sole and solitary Heaven … (Timaeus 34a-b).

Aristotle himself concludes that “it is the soul (of the universe) which causes the motion of the body (of the universe)” and that “the reason why God made the soul (of the universe) revolve in a circle is that this form of movement is better than any other” (407b 21).

This is entirely consistent with the point Aristotle has been making which is that the soul does not move but imparts movement to the body and is in turn caused to move by God a.k.a. the Unmoved Mover.

Basically, (a) you didn’t provide the quote you said you did, because it doesn’t exist, (b) you are distorting the text, (c) you are confusing one thing with the other, and (d) you are using Copernicus and modern astronomy as a straw man to cover up your misinterpretation of Aristotle.

Is this why you call yourself “undercover”? :smile:

I can't see the point you are making here, Paine. Aristotle clearly says that thoughts are dependent on images. It's at the end of your quote. And images are derived from the senses. So we have no basis for a "nous" which is independent of the senses, sense organs, and material body. It's true that Aristotle, at some points alludes to the appearance of a separate, independent mind, but such a thing is inconsistent with the principles he clearly states. — Metaphysician Undercover

This inconsistency you refer to goes toward illuminating my inability to decipher what you think Aristotle is saying. You seem to be invested in claiming Aristotle is saying X. But you also are arguing against claims made by Aristotle when they do not support your interpretation of X.

How is a conversation about an author's intent to go forward under these conditions?

Aristotle in De Caelo simply states that there is no circular motion of an infinite body. Finite bodies like the universe can and do have circular (or apparently circular) motion as Aristotle himself says!

The real issue is who or what moves something that has circular motion or motion in general. In the case of the heaven, it is God a.k.a. the Unmoved Mover who causes that movement. — Apollodorus

Right, what is discussed here in "De Caelo" is the possibility of an "infinite" motion. And it is shown that "the infinite cannot move". This supports the common interpretation of Aristotle, that any infinite must be potential only, and cannot be actual. Simply put, an actual infinite would require traversing an infinite amount of time, and that is impossible. Therefore any infinity is a potential infinity.

This is not relevant to the discussion of "eternal" circular motion in "De Anima", unless we establish some relationship between "eternal" and "infinite". If "eternal" is conceived as a type of infinity, then we see that by the discussion in "De Caleo", eternal circular motion is impossible, as an infinite motion (i.e. a motion which traverses an infinite amount of time).

But the issue is not so simple. In his "Metaphysics" Aristotle demonstrates that anything eternal must be actual (cosmological argument). This drives a wedge of separation between "infinite" (potential) and "eternal" (actual). What we can conclude, is that any actuality which is supposed to be "eternal", cannot be described as a "motion", because this would constitute an infinite motion which is impossible. Infinite motion is demonstrated as impossible in "De Caelo". So when he discusses the supposed eternality of the soul, or mind, in "De Anima", the idea of an eternal circular motion, as an actual infinite motion, is discredited as such.

Aristotle himself concludes that “it is the soul (of the universe) which causes the motion of the body (of the universe)” and that “the reason why God made the soul (of the universe) revolve in a circle is that this form of movement is better than any other” (407b 21). — Apollodorus

This passage is not at all as you present it. It is not what Aristotle is concluding here. He is presenting this as what is implied by those (Platonists) who present this position, and he presents this as an absurdity which must be concluded from that position.

If the circular movement is eternal, there must be something which mind is always thinking; what can this be?
For all practical processes of thinking have limits; they all go on for the sake of something outside the process, and all theoretical processes come to a close in the same way as the phrases in speech which express processes and results of thinking. Every such linguistic phrase is either definitory or demonstrative. Demonstration has both a starting-point and may be said to end in a conclusion or inferred result; even if the process never reaches final completion, at any rate it never returns upon itself again to its starting-point, it goes on assuming a fresh middle term or a fresh extreme, and moves straight forward, but circular movement returns to its starting-point. Definitions, too, are closed groups of terms.

Further, if the same revolution is repeated, mind must repeatedly think the same object.

Further, thinking has more resemblance to a coming to rest or arrest than to a movement; the
same may be said of inferring. It might also be urged that what is difficult and enforced is incompatible with blessedness; if the movement of the soul is not of its essence, movement of the soul must be contrary to its nature. It must also be painful for the soul to be inextricably bound up with the body; nay more, if, as is frequently said and widely accepted, it is better for mind not to be embodied, the union must be for it undesirable.

Further, the cause of the revolution of the heavens is left obscure. It is not the essence of soul which is the cause of this circular movement -- that movement is only incidental to soul -- nor is, a fortiori, the body its cause. Again, it is not even asserted that it is better that soul should be so moved; and yet the reason for which God caused the soul to move in a circle can only have been that movement was better for it than rest, and movement of this kind better than any other. But since this sort of consideration is more appropriate to another field of speculation, let us dismiss it for the present. — Aristotle De Anima Bk1, Ch3, 407a,23 -407b,13

Notice, that Aristotle is saying that if it is true that the soul moves in this way, then the reason why God caused the soul to move "can only have been that movement was better for it", yet those (Platonists) who claim this, do not even assert "that it is better that soul should be so moved". So absolutely nothing supports that assumption, no logic, nor proposed good.

This is completely different from your representation, that Aristotle concludes "the reason why God made the soul (of the universe) revolve in a circle is that this form of movement is better than any other”.

Please Appollodorus, read the entire chapter, and quit with the false references. The fact hat you resort to false references to support your interpretation does not bode well for you. And I do not want to reproduce the entire section here, when you clearly have access to it, and the capacity to go read it for yourself.

How is a conversation about an author's intent to go forward under these conditions? — Paine

I do not see how you can reduce a philosopher's intentions to one "intent". At any point in writing any particular passage, we might say that the author has a particular intent as to what is to be expressed by that paragraph, or even by a particular sentence. We might assume that each passage ought to fit together into a coherent whole, and from this coherent whole we might be able to produce an interpretation of the author's overall "intent".

But philosophy is not so straight forward. A particular individual might produce volumes of material over an extended period of time, and one's belief and understanding of fundamental principles can change considerably over that time. This is very evident with Plato for example. Such changes will produce inconsistencies when we view the philosopher's overall work as a whole, trying to determine the author's intent. Because of this, it might not be at all realistic to try and discuss the "author's intent", as if it were to be some principle which would unify the whole, in consistency.

However, if we look at Aristotle's "Nichomachean Ethics", we see that he considered the highest activity to be contemplation, and the highest form of contemplation to be contemplating "the truth". This is somewhat different from Appollodorus' proposal that the highest activity would be contemplating contemplating. But from this we might conclude that Aristotle's overall intent is "the truth".

When a philosopher contemplates "the truth", and the truth is not immediately evident to that person, then the person must consider all possibilities, prior to making a judgement. Such a philosopher, in the contemplation of truth, might continue to consider, and present in written form, numerous possibilities, constituting multiple proposals, without necessarily making any judgement of "truth".

This is why, for us in interpretation, it is of the utmost importance to determine inconsistency. Inconsistency is an indication that truth is not there, something is amiss. If the author's intent is "the truth", and we find inconsistency, then we know that there is some sort of mistake.

This is why, for us in interpretation, it is of the utmost importance to determine inconsistency. Inconsistency is an indication that truth is not there, something is amiss. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's exactly what I'm saying. Your comments seem to be one straw man after another, with little evidence of "truth" given that they are inconsistent with Aristotle's statements .... :smile:

This is your own claim that you have repeatedly made here:

The unacceptability of eternal circular motions is described by Aristotle in De Anima Bk1, Ch3, — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course I have access to the texts and I have read them many times over. Contrary to your claim, it is absolutely clear and well-known that Aristotle holds the first principle and primary reality to be eternal and immovable and to cause eternal circular motion in the universe.

He even says that he has proved that the planets have eternal circular motion:

The first principle and primary reality is immovable, both essentially and accidentally, but it excites the primary form of motion, which is one and eternal. Now since that which is moved must be moved by something, and the prime mover must be essentially immovable, and eternal motion must be excited by something eternal, and one motion by some one thing; and since we can see that besides the simple spatial motion of the universe (which we hold to be excited by the primary immovable substance) there are other spatial motions—those of the planets—which are eternal (because a body which moves in a circle is eternal and is never at rest—this has been proved in our physical treatises) … (Metaphysics 1073a)

The passages from the treatises cited include Physics 212b (“Therefore, the heaven moves in a circle”), De Caelo 277b, 286a, 287a-b, 293a, De Generatione et Corruptione 338a-b, etc.:

A consideration of these points, then, gives adequate assurance of the truth of our contentions. The same could also be shown with the aid of the discussions which fall under First Philosophy, as well as from the nature of the circular movement, which must be eternal both here and in the other worlds. It is plain, too, from the following considerations that the universe must be one. (De Caelo 277b).

The reason [of why there is more than one motion] must be sought in the following facts. Everything which has a function exists for its function. The activity of God is immortality, i.e. eternal life. Therefore the movement of that which is divine must be eternal. But such is the heaven, viz. a divine body, and for that reason to it is given the circular body whose nature it is to move always in a circle (De Caelo 286a).

Since the whole revolves, palpably and by assumption in a circle, it will follow necessarily that the heaven is spherical … Therefore, if the heaven moves in a circle and moves more swiftly than anything else, it must necessarily be spherical … It is plain from the foregoing that the universe is spherical … Now there are two ways of moving along a circle, and we have already explained that these movements are not contrary to one another. But nothing which concerns the eternal can be a matter of chance or spontaneity, and the heaven and its circular motion are eternal (De Caelo 287a-b).

The characteristics of the stars which move with a circular motion, in respect of substance and shape, movement and order, have now been sufficiently explained (De Caelo 293a).

It is in circular movement, therefore, and in cyclical coming-to-be that the ‘absolutely necessary’ is to be found … The result we have reached is logically concordant with the eternity of circular motion, i.e. the eternity of the revolution of the heavens … For since the revolving body is always setting something else in motion, the movement of the things it moves must also be circular. Thus, from the being of the ‘upper revolution’ it follows that the sun revolves in this determinate manner …. (De Generatione et Corruptione 338a-b).

You admit this much yourself:

The accepted principle of the day, was that the orbits of the planets were eternal circular motions. This was supposed to be empirically proven, scientific knowledge. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aristotle certainly does not postulate "elliptical orbits" or discuss Copernicus. And far from rejecting eternal circular motion, he says in his own words that he demonstrates it!

Notice, that Aristotle is saying that if it is true that the soul moves in this way, then the reason why God caused the soul to move "can only have been that movement was better for it", yet those (Platonists) who claim this, do not even assert "that it is better that soul should be so moved". So absolutely nothing supports that assumption, no logic, nor proposed good. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. The soul. Aristotle does NOT reject eternal circular movement. He rejects the notion that the soul moves in a circle as part of his wider argument that the soul does not move itself but is caused to move by God.

He is clearly talking about the soul, which is why the whole book is called “De Anima” or “Peri Psyches”, i.e., “On the Soul”:

In the first place, it is not right to call the soul a magnitude … From what has been said it is clear that the soul cannot be a harmony and cannot revolve in a circle … From the foregoing it is clear that the soul is incapable of motion … (De Anima 407a21-408b15).

Moreover, I think you should notice that Plato explains exactly how the activity of soul is related to "circular motion":

Which kind of soul, then, shall we say is in control of Heaven and earth and the whole circle? That which is wise and full of goodness, or that which has neither quality?

If we are to assert that the whole course and motion of Heaven and of all it contains have a motion like to the motion and revolution and reckonings of reason, and proceed in a kindred manner, then clearly we must assert that the best soul regulates the whole cosmos and drives it on its course.

What is the nature of the motion of reason? Here, my friends, we come to a question that is difficult to answer wisely. In making our answer let us not bring on night, as it were, at midday, by looking right in the eye of the sun, as though with mortal eyes we could ever behold reason and know it fully; the safer way to behold the object with which our question is concerned is by looking at an image of it.

Let us take as an image that one of the ten motions which reason resembles.

The motion which moves in one place must necessarily move always round some center, being a copy of the turned wheels; and this has the nearest possible kinship and similarity to the revolution of reason.

If we described them both as moving regularly and uniformly in the same spot, round the same things and in relation to the same things, according to one rule and system—reason, namely, and the motion that spins in one place (likened to the spinning of a turned globe),—we should never be in danger of being deemed unskillful in the construction of fair images by speech.

On the other hand, the motion that is never uniform or regular or in the same place or around or in relation to the same things, not moving in one spot nor in any order or system or rule—this motion will be akin to absolute unreason.

So now there is no longer any difficulty in stating expressly that, inasmuch as soul is what we find driving everything round, we must affirm that this circumference of Heaven is of necessity driven round under the care and ordering of the best soul .... (Laws 897a-d).

Obviously, “circular motion” here is meant as a metaphorical image (eikon) which is said to most resemble or evoke the ordered activity of soul or reason.

It follows that Aristotle's criticism is directed at those who take Plato's metaphor literally.

In any case, it does not amount to "describing the unacceptability of eternal circular motion" by any stretch of imagination.

As I said, you are free to believe that Aristotle “describes the unacceptability of eternal circular motion”. But the rest of us are equally free to disbelieve that. And since you have provided zero evidence for your spurious claim, there can be only one conclusion ….

Of course I have access to the texts and I have read them many times over. — Apollodorus

Well then read De Anima Bk1 Ch3, and tell me what you think it says, if you disagree that he is obviously arguing against the rationality of eternal circular motion.

He even says that he has proved that the planets have eternal circular motion:

The first principle and primary reality is immovable, both essentially and accidentally, but it excites the primary form of motion, which is one and eternal. Now since that which is moved must be moved by something, and the prime mover must be essentially immovable, and eternal motion must be excited by something eternal, and one motion by some one thing; and since we can see that besides the simple spatial motion of the universe (which we hold to be excited by the primary immovable substance) there are other spatial motions—those of the planets—which are eternal (because a body which moves in a circle is eternal and is never at rest—this has been proved in our physical treatises) … (Metaphysics 1073a) — Apollodorus

This part of Metaphysics, I told Paine, is debatable as to whether it was even written by Aristotle. The "Metaphysics" is a collection of writings put together after Aristotle's death, and I have been told that there is good reason to believe that this section is not even his writing.

As I said, there is inconsistency in Aristotle on this matter of eternal circular motion. I do not at all deny that he talks about it it in many places. What I claim is that he discredits this idea especially at the place I refer to. You can see this clearly at the referred place in De Anima, if you would care to read it.

Exactly. The soul. Aristotle does NOT reject eternal circular movement. He rejects the notion that the soul moves in a circle as part of his wider argument that the soul does not move itself but is caused to move by God.

He is clearly talking about the soul, which is why the whole book is called “De Anima” or “Peri Psyches”, i.e., “On the Soul”: — Apollodorus

He is questioning how the soul moves the body. He doesn't say the soul is caused to move by God, nor is the soul a self-moved mover. He says that the soul does not move; "... it is an impossibility that movement should be even an attribute of it." 406a2

The reason why the soul cannot be described by terms of motion, is explained. Motion is spatial, therefore bodily, and the soul is immaterial. Therefore, the idea of a soul or a mind moving in an eternal circular motion is unacceptable.

Further, he explains that there is no bodily evidence that any soul, or mind, causes any body to move in a circular motion, nor is there any reason (the good, the sake of which), given by those who profess this idea, why any soul, mind, or God, would cause a body to move in a circular motion.

Obviously, “circular motion” here is meant as a metaphorical image (eikon) which is said to most resemble or evoke the ordered activity of soul or reason.

It follows that Aristotle's criticism is directed at those who take Plato's metaphor literally. — Apollodorus

Are you saying that when Aristotle rejects this idea of eternal circular motion at "De Anima" Bk1, Ch 3, he just misunderstood Plato's meaning? Plato wasn't talking literally about the circles of the heavens, in Timaeus, but metaphorically, and Aristotle took it literally in his rejection of it? Are you serious?

And since you have provided zero evidence for your spurious claim, there can be only one conclusion …. — Apollodorus

The evidence is clearly there, De Anima Bk1, Ch3. You just refuse to read it, in your continued denial.

Plato wasn't talking literally about the circles of the heavens, in Timaeus, but metaphorically, and Aristotle took it literally in his rejection of it? — Metaphysician Undercover

You seem to confuse the heavens with soul, the circular motion of soul with eternal circular motion, circular motion in an infinite body with circular motion in a finite body, etc., etc.

Plato says that the heaven moves in a circular motion and so does Aristotle.

As explained in The Laws, soul is said to have a circular motion metaphorically, circular motion being the most ordered form of motion that symbolizes the ordered activities of reason.

As indicated by the title, Aristotle’s De Anima/Peri Psyches (“On the Soul”) is about the soul.

Aristotle argues that soul is not a self-moving entity.

As part of his discussion of different views, he briefly addresses the claim that the soul of the universe has a circular motion.

He concludes that soul cannot revolve in a circle and is incapable of self-motion.

However, this has NOTHING to do with eternal circular motion. He says that he proved it in his treatises on physics, and so he has if you take the time to read the many statements to that effect that I quoted above.

This is the claim that you have been making:

The unacceptability of eternal circular motions is described by Aristotle in De Anima Bk1, Ch3, — Metaphysician Undercover

The fact is that Aristotle describes no such thing. He merely argues that the soul has no circular motion. The SOUL, not the heaven.

You admit Aristotle's eternal circular movement in your own statements!

The accepted principle of the day, was that the orbits of the planets were eternal circular motions. This was supposed to be empirically proven, scientific knowledge. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is exactly Aristotle's view that he says he has proved:

The heaven is a divine body, and for that reason to it is given the circular body whose nature it is to move always in a circle (De Caelo 286a).

Therefore, the heaven moves in a circle (Physics 212b)

Etc., etc. ....

Plato says that the heaven moves in a circular motion and so does Aristotle. — Apollodorus

I agree with this. Now, do you agree that when we describe a motion as a circular motion, it is not necessarily eternal? And this is where the problem is, with the idea of an eternal circular motion. Eternal circular motion implies that the circle is absolutely perfect, and every point on the circumference, is the very same as every other point on the circumference, such that the motion can never have a variance, and no point can ever be the beginning or the end. You'll see in Plato's Timaeus, 35-36, how he refers to the orbits of the heavenly bodies under the categories of the Same, and the Different. The latter are the ones which are very obviously not perfect circles.

The impossibility of an actual, infinite circular motion, is discussed by Aristotle at "De Caelo" 272a, 272b. We see that such a motion would require an infinite amount of time, so it exists in potential only. And so it is an Idea only. As Aristotle demonstrates in "Metaphysics" Ideas have existence as potential.

At "De Anima" Bk1, Ch3, he looks at the immaterial "soul", and "mind", and explains why these things cannot be described by eternal circular motion, nor can they be said to cause an eternal circular motion.

However, this has NOTHING to do with eternal circular motion. He says that he proved it in his treatises on physics, and so he has if you take the time to read the many statements to that effect that I quoted above. — Apollodorus

Have you read Aristotle's "Physics"? He says rotary motion "can be eternal" Here: "Again, a motion that admits of being eternal is prior to one that does not. Now rotary motion can be eternal: but no other motion...can be so." Physics Bk8, Ch.9, 265a,25.

[quote=Aristotle Physics, Bk8, Ch9, 6-9 "Our present position, then, is this: We have argued that there always was motion and always will be motion throughout all time, and we have explained what is the first principle of this eternal motion; we have explained further which is the primary motion and which is the only motion that can be eternal: and we have pronounced the first movement to be unmoved." [/quote]

Notice two points here, "our present position", implying that this position is not necessarily to be firmly adhered to, and also, that circular motion "can" be eternal, implying potential.

So when he moves forward to discuss the reality of the immaterial, in "De Anima", and "Metaphysics" he finds that this "present position" which was adequate for physics, is no longer adequate when discussing the principles of the immaterial, i.e., the non-physical. In Metaphysics, the cosmological argument demonstrates that anything eternal must be actual, and this excludes the eternal circular motion, as being described in his "Physics" and "De Caelo", as being potential only. And, at the referred part of De Anima Bk1, Ch 3, he provides a very good explanation as to why the idea of an eternal circular motion is truly an unacceptable idea.

Anything eternal must be truly immaterial, as matter is the principle of contingency. Any sort of motion, including circular motion, involves matter. So we see the material circle expressed here as a "spatial magnitude", and Aristotle explains why such a description, of a spatial magnitude, cannot be applied to something like a soul, or a mind, which is supposed to be truly immaterial, and truly eternal.

Therefore we can conclude that infinite circular motion, is an ideal only. Motion which exists "throughout all time", is a conceptual idea which forces us to reconsider the meaning of "eternal", which cannot refer to a sort of motion. And if we do not dismiss this Ideal, 'motion which exists throughout all time", and allow that there is "a time" for the immaterial; the immaterial being necessarily prior to the material; and therefore "a time" when there is no motion (motion being a material concept), then we are forced to make "eternal" refer to that which is outside of time, rather than that which exists throughout all time.

Absolutely not.

Aristotle states very clearly that, though finite, the whole universe is spherical and consists of spherical bodies revolving in circles with an eternal motion:

The movement of that which is divine must be eternal. Such is the heaven, viz. a divine body, and for that reason to it is given the circular body whose nature it is to move always in a circle (De Caelo 286a).

He also explains why:

Circular motion is necessarily primary. For the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, and the circle is a perfect thing … Our eyes tell us that the heavens revolve in a circle, and by argument also we have determined that there is something to which circular movement belongs … The infinite cannot revolve in a circle; nor could the world, if it were infinite … The heavens certainly revolve, and they complete their circular orbit in a finite time … Nor could the body whose movement is circular be infinite, since it is impossible for the infinite to move in a circle. This, indeed, would be as good as saying that the heavens are infinite, which we have shown to be impossible … The motion of the heaven is the measure of all movements whatever in virtue of being alone continuous and regular and eternal … Nothing which concerns the eternal can be a matter of chance or spontaneity, and the heaven and its circular motion are eternal … The body which revolves with a circular movement must be spherical … Since the whole revolves in a circle, and since it has been shown that outside the farthest circumference there is neither void nor place, it will follow necessarily that the heaven is spherical … If the world had some other figure with unequal radii, for instance it were lentiform, or oviform, we should have to admit space and void outside the moving body … (De Caelo 269a-291b ff.)

Aristotle's whole approach has to do with his (and Plato’s) idea of perfection and of lower, imperfect levels of reality being a reflection of higher, perfect and divine ones.

Like Plato’s philosophy, Aristotle’s system has a political, ethical, and spiritual dimension, the spiritual one being the highest and the goal of human existence (as well as of philosophy itself).

Your failure to understand this prevents you from correctly understanding Aristotle (and Plato) and you get bogged down in unfounded and futile "interpretations" that can only lead to materialism in the best case and to psychological issues in the worst …. :smile:

Your failure to understand this prevents you from correctly understanding Aristotle (and Plato) and you get bogged down in unfounded and futile "interpretations" that can only lead to materialism in the best case and to psychological issues in the worst — Apollodorus

While I disagree with many parts of Metaphysician Undercover's reading of Aristotle, I also disagree with your penchant to decide what the different interpretations lead to. I have no idea whether Metaphysician Undercover's interpretation leads to the results you portend. The categories you employ are not matters of fact but involve many unresolved questions of scholarship and reflection.

For instance, I disagree with a large number of Gerson's arguments that I have been encouraged to engage with here. I have no interest in pronouncing any judgement upon his views outside of agreeing or disagreeing with his statements about the arguments and intent of the text he puts forth.

What possible value could be derived from treating those disagreements as proof of an agenda not stated in the text?

While I disagree with many parts of Metaphysician Undercover's reading of Aristotle, I also disagree with your penchant to decide what the different interpretations lead to. — Paine

Great. We all disagree then! :grin:

Aristotle states very clearly that, though finite, the whole universe is spherical and consists of spherical bodies revolving in circles with an eternal motion:

The movement of that which is divine must be eternal. Such is the heaven, viz. a divine body, and for that reason to it is given the circular body whose nature it is to move always in a circle (De Caelo 286a). — Apollodorus

That's a position he's refuting at that point. I'm tired of your false references.

He also explains why: — Apollodorus

There is no explanation there, only confused bits and pieces of a writing, which appears contradictory. Look at the contradiction, it says anything which moves in a circular motion must be finite. Then it says "the heavens" have a circle which completes and is therefore finite. So, the heavens have a finite circular motion which completes. Then it says the heavens have an eternal circular motion. An eternal circular motion is clearly defined as without beginning or ending.

I really think you are very sloppy in your referencing Appollodorus, And, I noticed in our discussion concerning Plato that you do not take the time to distinguish the ideas which the author is promoting, from the ideas which the author is condemning. You seem to be doing that again here. I fully realize that this form of judgement is much more difficult with Aristotle than Plato, because Plato generally had Socrates making the statements he agreed with. But you had trouble with "The Sophist" where we do not have the luxury of having Socrates making the statements. Aristotle however, will go to great lengths, paragraph after paragraph, describing someone else's principles, which he ultimately disagreed with. This is what Plato did in "The Sophist", described as thoroughly as possible, the position, to the reader, allowing the reader to apply rational thought to reject what needed to be rejected.

This sloppy reading of yours reflects in the overall attitude you expressed earlier in this thread. You tried to push the idea that Aristotle is completely consistent with Plato, and Neo-Platonism is consistent with both of these two. Of course, if you fail to distinguish whether a particular philosopher agrees, or does not agree, with the ideas of another philosopher which are being described, then you'll come away with the idea that everyone agrees with each other. However, you'll have to deal with multiple inconsistencies and contradictions within the writings of one philosopher, as you demonstrated in the quote above.

Your failure to understand this prevents you from correctly understanding Aristotle (and Plato) and you get bogged down in unfounded and futile "interpretations" that can only lead to materialism in the best case and to psychological issues in the worst …. :smile: — Apollodorus

When I have been taking great care to distinguish between the material and the immaterial, according to Aristotle's principles, how can you think that this can only lead to materialism? A circular motion is a description of an activity of a material thing. An eternal thing, being prior to time, therefore outside of time, (when time is a conception derived from material activity), is immaterial. It is your assumption, that a material body could have an eternal existence through circular motion, which is what is conducive to materialism. That's why many who interpret in ways similar to you claim Aristotle to be materialist, the self-moved mover becomes prime matter, with its fundamental activity of eternal motion. But this idea of associating "eternal" with circular motion is what Aristotle flatly rejected in "De Anima". It is rejected because it hinders us from producing a proper conception of "immaterial" because it associates "eternal" with something material.

Maybe you guys should establish your own thread where you disagree with each other for time out of mind. You both want to monopolize what is being discussed. You deserve each other.

No, I'm tired of it.

An eternal circular motion is clearly defined as without beginning or ending. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's exactly what Aristotle is saying!

As clearly stated in De Caelo, the universe is spherical and it consists of concentric spheres representing the five primary elements. The earth which is at the center, is surrounded by the spheres of water, fire, air, and ether.

While the first four elements have a vertical (or radial) motion, the fifth, ether, has a circular motion which is without beginning or end, perfect, eternal, and divine. The heavenly bodies themselves are spherical, made of ether, and moving in a circle like the ethereal heaven where they are located, etc.

It should be obvious that Aristotle’s cosmology depends on eternal circular motion and that he cannot possibly describe “the unacceptability of eternal circular motion” as this would cause his entire system to collapse.

Aristotle’s main intention is to present a picture of the universe as a perfect, eternal, and divinely ordered reality the contemplation of which enables man to elevate himself to the higher realms of pure intelligence.

But you deny that this is possible, hence your insistence on putting a materialist spin on it as well as claiming that Metaphysics was not written by Aristotle and dismissing every passage that contradicts your spurious "interpretations".

As I said, you can believe anything you want. But if you expect people to believe what you say, that’s a different matter. Anyway, you seem to be talking to yourself, so good luck with that …. :smile:

You both want to monopolize what is being discussed. — Paine

I don’t think anyone is “monopolizing” anything. There wasn’t much of a discussion anyway.

And if you follow the thread you will see that Metaphysician Undercover started by claiming that Aristotle proposed the principle of “eternal circular motion” (page 6) after which he said that this principle is unacceptable and ought to be rejected (page 9) and ended up claiming that Aristotle himself describes the “unacceptability” of the same principle!

Aristotle proposed a first principle of physical (material) existence. This was the eternal circular motion. Motion in a perfect circle can have no beginning nor end. And the orbits of the planets were supposed to be those eternal circular motions. — Metaphysician Undercover

When an author whom a person respects to a great level, proposes unacceptable principles, like eternal circular motions for example, then one must dig deep within that author's work to uncover the reasons for that mistake … — Metaphysician Undercover

The unacceptability of eternal circular motions is described by Aristotle in De Anima Bk1, Ch3, — Metaphysician Undercover

You pointed that out yourself:

You seem to be invested in claiming Aristotle is saying X. But you also are arguing against claims made by Aristotle when they do not support your interpretation of X. — Paine

An eternal circular motion is clearly defined as without beginning or ending.
— Metaphysician Undercover

That's exactly what Aristotle is saying! — Apollodorus

Look closely at your quote Appollodorus:

The heavens certainly revolve, and they complete their circular orbit in a finite time … — Apollodorus

"Complete" here implies ends. And "ends" is incompatible with "without beginning or ending". It is very clear that he is arguing against the idea that the orbits of the heavens are actually eternal.

Aristotle’s main intention is to present a picture of the universe as a perfect, eternal, and divinely ordered reality the contemplation of which enables man to elevate himself to the higher realms of pure intelligence. — Apollodorus

This is exactly opposite to the reality of what Aristotle was doing. He is arguing that we ought to contemplate "truth", as explained in "Nichomachean Ethics". Therefore we ought to reject the idea that the universe is a "perfect, eternal, and divinely ordered reality". This idea is inconsistent with the observed reality, as described in Plato's Timaeus 35-37. And being inconsistent with observed reality implies that it cannot be "truth".

And if you follow the thread you will see that Metaphysician Undercover started by claiming that Aristotle proposed the principle of “eternal circular motion” (page 6) after which he said that this principle is unacceptable and ought to be rejected (page 9) and ended by claiming that Aristotle himself describes the “unacceptability” of the same principle! — Apollodorus

Yes, this is a common procedure in philosophy. One proposes a principle (like eternal circular motion for example), which may be widely accepted in certain circles of society, then proceeds to demonstrate the falsity of that proposition. If you haven't read enough philosophy to recognize this fact, I am not to blame for that.

The 1634 trial of Galileo was pivotal in the relationship of Western civilisation to science. By finding Galileo 'greiviously suspect of heresy' the Church implied science is heretical. Rather than welcome science as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, they divorced science as a tool from science as a understanding of reality, allowing that science be used to drive the Industrial Revolution, but protecting the religious, political and economic ideological architecture from any responsibility to science as truth. Consequently we have nuclear weapons and climate change, but don't have a species identity or limitless clean energy from magma!

this is a common procedure in philosophy. One proposes a principle (like eternal circular motion for example), which may be widely accepted in certain circles of society, then proceeds to demonstrate the falsity of that proposition. — Metaphysician Undercover

The issue is not "common procedures in philosophy" at all. It is what Aristotle does or does not say in his treatises. He does NOT say that eternal circular motion is "unacceptable" anywhere in the corpus.

Even in logical terms he couldn't say such a thing since he repeatedly says (a) that there is eternal circular motion and (b) that he has proved it:

there are other spatial motions—those of the planets—which are eternal (because a body which moves in a circle is eternal and is never at rest—this has been proved in our physical treatises) … (Metaphysics 1073a)

Of course Aristotle says that "the heavens certainly revolve, and they complete their circular orbit in a finite time", as this is what he believes the heavens do. But he doesn't say that once the orbit is completed the heavens stop in their tracks and disappear. According to him the revolving motion continues eternally.

The idea is that the ordered structure and movement of the universe which is "perfect", "eternal", and "divine" enables man to elevate his thought above material reality and grasp the intelligible, noetic world by means of that in him which is eternal and divine, i.e., the nous.

Very simple and easy to understand, IMO.

Your claim can only stand if you insist that Aristotle "didn't write Metaphysics" and dismiss half of the corpus as mere "oversight" and "mistake".

If you follow your own method, you could equally discard your claim as "oversight" and "mistake" and let
the rest of the corpus stand as it is, which would be more logical, especially in view of the fact that Aristotle does not say what you are claiming he does .... :smile:

The issue is not "common procedures in philosophy" at all. It is what Aristotle does or does not say in his treatises. He does NOT say that eternal circular motion is "unacceptable" anywhere in the corpus. — Apollodorus

Yeah sure , "unacceptable" is an English word which Aristotle would not be in the habit of using. Logically, he proves that the principle is definitely a logical possibility. Then he demonstrates that the principle is not true, it doesn't correspond with anything real, neither in relation to the material nor the immaterial aspects of the universe.

Of course Aristotle says that "the heavens certainly revolve, and they complete their circular orbit in a finite time", as this is what he believes the heavens do. But he doesn't say that once the orbit is completed the heavens stop in their tracks and disappear. According to him the revolving motion continues eternally. — Apollodorus

Spin it however you like Appollodorus, but what is described is that one finite orbit completes. You might insist that it is followed by another, but the next is different from the first, and the differences are described in Plato's Timaeus. And this is completely incompatible with "eternal circular motion" as the logical possibility described by Aristotle, which requires motion in a perfect circle, where one revolution is indistinguishable from another as exactly the same, forever.

Your claim can only stand if you insist that Aristotle "didn't write Metaphysics" and dismiss half of the corpus as mere "oversight" and "mistake". — Apollodorus

As I said earlier, "Metaphysics" is a bunch of separate pieces of writing, collected together long after Aristotle's death. I took a course on this text in university, and the professor said that it is debatable whether Bks10-12 were actually produced by Aristotle. It was his opinion that this part was written by some unknown Neo-Platonist. Evidently there is a difference in style.

Then he demonstrates that the principle is not true, it doesn't correspond with anything real — Metaphysician Undercover

He does NOT demonstrate that AT ALL and you have ZERO evidence that he does.

what is described is that one finite orbit completes. You might insist that it is followed by another, but the next is different from the first — Metaphysician Undercover

Aristotle uses the word "ETERNAL" (aidios) and as far as I am concerned he means just that, ETERNAL.

This is absolutely clear from his discussion in the De Caelo:

The total time is finite in which the heavens complete their circular orbit, and consequently the time subtracted from it, during which the one line in its motion cuts the other, is also finite. Therefore there will be a point at which ACE [a line infinite in the direction E that revolves on its center C, describing a circle] began for the first time to cut BB [a line infinite in both directions drawn within the circle]. This, however, is impossible. The infinite, then, cannot revolve in a circle; nor could the world, IF it were infinite …
Moreover, the heavens certainly revolve, and they complete their circular orbit in a finite time; so that they pass round the whole extent of any line within their orbit, such as the finite line AB. The revolving body, therefore, cannot be infinite …
Again, if the heaven is infinite and moves in a circle, we shall have to admit that in a finite time it has traversed the infinite. For suppose the fixed heaven infinite, and that which moves within it equal to it. It results that when the infinite body has completed its revolution, it has traversed an infinite equal to itself in a finite time. But that we know to be impossible (De Caelo 272a-273a).

Aristotle simply states that an infinite body cannot revolve in a circle. But he has ascertained that one revolution of the heavens occupies a limited time and uses this to prove the finitude of the orbit and, consequently, of the body of the heavens itself. A finite body like the heavens can move in a circle and according to him it does so eternally.

What he is saying is:

(A). The infinite cannot revolve in a circle.
(B). Nor could the world (or heaven), if it were infinite.
(C). But the world/heaven is finite.
(D). Therefore the world/heaven can revolve in a circle.
(E). And this revolution is eternal.

Though an orbit is completed in a finite time, its completion does not imply cessation of motion. The circular motion continues as the orbit is completed over and over again.

If you drive your car around in circles, you complete many rounds, you don’t stop after one round. Or think of athletes running around a stadium, a horse running circles in a field, etc. Completing one round is not the same as ceasing to move altogether. The first is necessarily finite as you will eventually return to the point of departure. The second isn’t. THIS is what Aristotle is talking about.

The circular movement of the heavens was a long-established view going back to the Babylonians. For Aristotle, the system is geocentric, and he thinks of the universe as a sphere revolving around the earth.

So everything is based on spheres and circles, these being said to be perfect geometric figures. Even in Plato, the universe is said to be created according to a perfect divine paradigm and therefore constitutes an image or reflection of divine perfection.

Aristotle is obviously arguing that the heavens are (a) divine, (b) eternal, and (c) possessing an eternal circular motion:

That the heaven as a whole neither came into being nor admits of destruction, as some assert, but is one and eternal, with no end or beginning of its total duration, containing and embracing in itself the infinity of time, we may convince ourselves not only by the arguments already set forth but also by a consideration of the views of those who differ from us in providing for its generation. If our view is a possible one, and the manner of generation which they assert is impossible, this fact will have great weight in convincing us of the immortality and eternity of the world. Hence it is well to persuade oneself of the truth of the ancient and truly traditional theories, that there is some immortal and divine thing which possesses movement such as has no limit and is rather itself the limit of all other movement … (De Caelo 283b26)
The ancients gave to the Gods the heaven or upper place, as being alone immortal; and our present argument testifies that it is indestructible and ungenerated. Further, it is unaffected by any mortal discomfort, and, in addition, effortless … (284a10)
The activity of God is immortality, i.e. eternal life. Therefore the movement of that which is divine must be eternal. But such is the heaven, viz. a divine body, and for that reason to it is given the circular body whose nature it is to move always in a circle … (286a10)

If circular movement is natural to something, it must surely be some simple and primary body which is ordained to move with a natural circular motion … (269b5)
The reasons why the primary body is eternal and not subject to increase or diminution, but unaging and unalterable and unmodified, will be clear from what has been said to any one who believes in our assumptions. Our theory seems to confirm experience and to be confirmed by it. For all men have some conception of the nature of the Gods, and all who believe in the existence of the Gods at all, whether barbarian or Greek, agree in allotting the highest place to the deity, surely because they suppose that immortal is linked with immortal and regard any other supposition as inconceivable. If then there is, as there certainly is, anything divine, what we have just said about the primary bodily substance was well said. The mere evidence of the senses is enough to convince us of this, at least with human certainty. For in the whole range of time past, so far as our inherited records reach, no change appears to have taken place either in the whole scheme of the outermost heaven or in any of its proper parts … (270b1-15)
The shape of the heaven is of necessity spherical; for that is the shape most appropriate to its substance and also by nature primary … (286b10)

Clearly, this is NOT an argument Aristotle takes up for refutation, but one the facts of which he positively asserts and the truth of which he urges the reader to convince himself of.

Aristotle, De Caelo

If I were you, I would seriously consider requesting a refund on that course you did .... :grin:

The circular movement of the heavens was a long-established view going back to the Babylonians. For Aristotle, the system is geocentric, and he thinks of the universe as a sphere revolving around the earth.

So everything is based on spheres and circles, these being said to be perfect geometric figures. Even in Plato, the universe is said to be created according to a perfect divine paradigm and therefore constitutes an image or reflection of divine perfection. — Apollodorus

Yes, this is where the problem was, the idea that the movements of the heavens could be represented as "perfect geometric figures". In a nutshell, this is Pythagorean idealism, the activities of the universe are composed of such Ideals. Plato demonstrated the deficiency of such idealism. And it is evident in the Timaeus that the orbits are not perfect circles. Exceptions to the "perfect geometric figures" were well known. So Aristotle moved even further in the refutation of this Pythagoreanism. You clearly misunderstand both Plato and Aristotle, when you claim that they support this notion that the universe is composed of perfect geometric figures. They were actually both working to expose the problems with this idea.

Clearly, this is NOT an argument Aristotle takes up for refutation, but one the facts of which he positively asserts and the truth of which he urges the reader to convince himself of. — Apollodorus

I honestly don't think that you even read the material, Appollodorus. You seem to just skim, in search of quotes to support your prejudice.

Read "De Caelo" Bk1 Ch9 please. He clearly defines "the heaven" as a particular material thing. It is perceptible and therefore consists of matter. It is one, and it consists of all physical or sensible bodies. No body is "outside" the heaven. Nor is there place, void, or time outside heaven.

But then he states what can be outside the heaven:

It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outer most motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most sufficient of lives, As a matter of fact, this word 'duration' possessed a divine significance for the ancients, for the fulfilment which includes the period of life of any creature, outside of which no natural development can fall, has been called its duration. — Aristotle DeCaelo 17-25

Notice how he places the divine, the unalterable, outside the material "heaven". He then proceeds for a number of chapters to discuss the concepts of "generated", "ungenerated", "destructible" and "indestructible, in relation to "eternal". He considers the possibility that something generated could be indestructible, or that something ungenerated could be destructible. So we have to consider "eternal" in two senses, of two temporal directions. Plato for example, he says, thought the heaven was generated but indestructible.

We see then, in Ch12, 283a 25-30, the conclusion to Bk1, that anything destructible will at some time be destroyed, and anything generable was at one time generated. And we can conclude, that "the heaven", as defined by Aristotle, as a particular material thing, is therefore not eternal. Matter, of which the heaven is composed, is the potential for change ("Physics"). So he closes the book with: "Whatever is destructible or generated is always alterable. Now alteration is due to contraries and the things which compose the natural body are the very same that destroy it..." 292b 21. Of course, in Ch9 he describes "the heaven" as "one", a particular, being a natural body composed of matter. Therefore we must conclude it is not eternal.

Therefore we must conclude it is not eternal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, Mister “Metaphysician (Foolosopher) Undercover”, you keep recycling the same spurious claim under different guises and changing the goal posts every time.

The fact is that this is YOUR conclusion, not Aristotle’s. That’s precisely why you say “we must conclude”. You can’t say “Aristotle concludes” as you have no evidence.

Saying “read the book, the evidence is there!” is mere evasion and not an acceptable argument in any philosophical or logical method that I am aware of. Anyone can say that.

Aristotle clearly says “eternal” (aidios) when referring to heaven and its circular movement.

The heaven is NOT "composed of matter and therefore not eternal". It is composed of ether which is a divine and eternal substance. Therefore it is ETERNAL by definition.

The movement of that which is divine must be eternal. But such is the heaven, viz. a divine body, and for that reason to it is given the circular body whose nature it is to move always in a circle.
But the circular movement is natural, since otherwise it could not be eternal: for nothing unnatural is eternal. The unnatural is subsequent to the natural, being a derangement of the natural which occurs in the course of its generation. Earth then has to exist. But if earth must exist, so must fire.
But further, if fire and earth exist, the intermediate bodies [air and water] must exist also. With these four elements generation is clearly involved, since none of them can be eternal .… (286a-b)

Clearly, Aristotle is talking about the traditional four elements, earth, water, air, and fire, as being generated and therefore not eternal. This is precisely why he introduces ether as a fifth, divine and eternal element that has circular motion!

This enables him to argue that the heaven is a divine sphere consisting of ether and eternally moving in a circular orbit:

But such is the heaven, viz. a divine body, and for that reason to it is given the circular body whose nature it is to move always in a circle ...

This is not my "prejudice" at all. It is elementary and generally accepted knowledge as can be seen from Wikipedia:

In his Book On the Heavens he introduced a new "first" element to the system of the classical elements of Ionian philosophy. He noted that the four terrestrial classical elements were subject to change and naturally moved linearly. The first element however, located in the celestial regions and heavenly bodies, moved circularly and had none of the qualities the terrestrial classical elements had. Aether naturally moved in circles, and had no contrary, or unnatural, motion. Aristotle also noted that celestial spheres made of aether held the stars and planets. The idea of aethereal spheres moving with natural circular motion led to Aristotle's explanation of the observed orbits of stars and planets in perfectly circular motion.

Aether (classical element) - Wikipedia

I think you really should ask for a refund on your “philosophy” course.

And while you are at it, you might as well return your "degrees", too. :smile:

The fact is that this is YOUR conclusion, not Aristotle’s. — Apollodorus

That's right. As I explained, this is the way that many good philosophers like Plato and Aristotle write. They lay out all the evidence as clearly as possible, allowing the reader to draw the required conclusion. This allows that the conclusion is made by the reader, rather than being forced on the reader through stipulation, so that the reader truly believes the conclusion which is made.

Saying “read the book, the evidence is there!” is mere evasion and not an acceptable argument in any philosophical or logical method that I am aware of. Anyone can say that.

Aristotle clearly says “eternal” (aidios) when referring to heaven and its circular movement. — Apollodorus

There is a type of philosophical writing, well exemplified by Wittgenstein, in which the author asserts something, then proceeds to demonstrates that the opposite of what is asserted is what the truth is. This is the Platonic method. Plato has Socrates' interlocutor make the assertion, then Socrates will proceed with the demonstration that what is asserted is not the truth. With Aristotle, we do not have the luxury of an interlocutor, to indicate the assertions which are to be proven as false. Without a very careful reading, an individual such as yourself, might not recognize which assertions are being proven to be false.

The heaven is NOT "composed of matter and therefore not eternal". It is composed of ether which is a divine and eternal substance. Therefore it is ETERNAL by definition. — Apollodorus

You obviously did not read "De Caelo" Bk1, Ch9. It is very clear that "the heaven" is one, and is a material object.

The world as a whole, therefore, includes all its appropriate matter, which is, as we saw, natural perceptible body. So that neither are there now, nor have there ever been, nor can there ever be formed more heavens than one, but this heaven of ours is one and unique and complete. — De Caelo Bk1, Ch9

Notice that "one" "unique", and "complete" are the defining attributes of a material body, a "particular". And at the beginning of Ch9 Aristotle explains carefully the difference between a particular thing, and a Form, or essential formula. The latter allows that there is more than one of the said thing.

That the heaven is a material body is also supported by your other quotes in which Aristotle demonstrates that anything which revolves in a circular rotation must be a material body.

Clearly, Aristotle is talking about the traditional four elements, earth, water, air, and fire, as being generated and therefore not eternal. This is precisely why he introduces ether as a fifth, divine and eternal element that has circular motion! — Apollodorus

Let me get this straight. In this section, Aristotle discusses how the earth and heaven are made up of bodies, are generated, and are not eternal. But you are claiming that he introduces "ether" here to justify eternality. Where's the reference to ether? Aether is a Pythagorean principle, and Aristotle firmly rejects Pythagoreanism. You are now demonstrating again, your ability to stretch your imagination.

I'm afraid there is neither rhyme nor reason to what you are saying there.

Aristotle clearly refers to the principle beyond the four traditional elements as “ether” (aither) and correctly states that this is the name “handed down from our ancestors” (the philosophers and poets):

The common name, too, which has been handed down from our distant ancestors even to our own day, seems to show that they conceived of it in the fashion which we have been expressing. And so, implying that the primary body is something else beyond earth, fire, air, and water, they gave the highest place a name of its own, aither, derived from the fact that it ‘runs always’ for an eternity of time (De Caelo 270b15-25)

As already stated, he says that the heaven is divine, eternal, and has a circular movement:

But such is the heaven, viz. a divine body, and for that reason to it is given the circular body whose nature it is to move always in a circle ...

He also explains why he thinks the heaven is eternal:

(A). If circular movement is an instance of simple movement,
(B). And simple movement is (a) simple and (b) of a simple body,
(C). Then there must be some simple body which revolves naturally and in virtue of its own nature with a circular movement.
(D). Generation and decay subsist in contraries.
(E). There can be no contrary motion to the circular.
(F). The body that has circular motion has no contrary.
(G). Heaven has (natural) circular motion.
(H). Therefore it has no contrary.
(I). Therefore it is ungenerated and indestructible.

At no point does he even remotely refute or reject the idea that the heaven is divine, eternal, and revolving.

Anyway, now that you finally admit that your claim is your own and not Aristotle's and that you have zero evidence to back it up, it should be obvious even to you that you are wasting your time trying to sell it to anyone.

So, good luck with that, but I'm not buying it .... :smile:

And so, implying that the primary body is something else beyond earth, fire, air, and water, they gave the highest place a name of its own, aither, derived from the fact that it ‘runs always’ for an eternity of time

Notice two things here. First, "they gave...". Obviously, this is someone else's principle being referred to. Second, it's a primary "body" being referred to. Therefore it is material, generated, destructible, and definitely not eternal. This is another principle which Aristotle is demonstrating as faulty. Nice try Appollodorus, but you're clutching at straws now.

Anyway, now that you finally admit that your claim is your own and not Aristotle's — Apollodorus

Finally admit it? That it's my own believe is what I stated at the very beginning.

I believe it is the soul itself which is the incorporeal element. And this is the same for all living things. This is the Aristotelian structure. — Metaphysician Undercover

and that you have zero evidence to back it up, — Apollodorus

This is false though. You're so stuck in your own prejudice that you refuse to look at the evidence. I know I won't "sell it" to anyone so extremely compromised by prejudice, that they refuse to read the material.

It isn’t “someone else’s principle” at all. He presents it as generally accepted tradition!

As Aristotle himself says, it is a tradition “handed down from our ancestors” and he agrees with the idea, with the name, and even with the derivation of the name which he got from his teacher Plato:

The word "ether" (aither) I understand in this way: because it always runs and flows about the air (ἀεὶ θεῖ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα ῥέον), it may properly be called “aeitheera” (Cratylus 410b).

What Aristotle is saying is that unlike the other four elements, ether is a divine (= eternal) substance and it makes up the heaven which is divine, eternal, and revolves in an eternal circular motion.

In one sense, we apply the word ouranos to the substance of the outermost circumference of the world, or to the natural body which is at the outermost circumference of the world; for it is customary to give the name of “heaven” (ouranos) especially to the outermost and uppermost region, in which also we believe all divinity to have its seat (De Caelo 278b10-15).
In its discussions concerning the divine, popular philosophy often propounds that whatever is divine, whatever is primary and supreme, is necessarily unchangeable. Its [the heaven’s] unceasing movement, then, is also reasonable, since everything ceases to move when it comes to its proper place, but the body whose path is the circle has one and the same place for starting-point and goal (279a30-279b4).

Aristotle obviously uses current philosophical tradition to justify his own position. There is no confusion there except in the mind of the confused.

As I said, you can try fooling someone else, Mr Foolosopher ….

It isn’t “someone else’s principle” at all. He presents it as generally accepted tradition!

As Aristotle himself says, it is a tradition “handed down from our ancestors” and he agrees with the idea, with the name, and even with the derivation of the name which he got from his teacher Plato: — Apollodorus

He presents it as what was believed by "all who believe in the existence of gods", what he calls "our distant ancestors". If someone were writing today, about what our distant ancestors believed about God, would you consider it a fair representation of what is generally accepted today? Would you look at the traditions of the Catholic church, and say that these are generally accepted traditions? We know that Socrates and Plato spoke out against "the gods" considerably.

That’s a totally unacceptable misrepresentation of what Aristotle is saying.

He is NOT saying that it is a view held a long time ago. He says it is an ancient tradition that has come down from distant ancestors to his own day:

The common name, too, which has been handed down from our distant ancestors even to our own day, seems to show that they conceived of it in the fashion which we have been expressing (De Caelo 270b15-20)

It is a long-established and at the time still current view which agrees with his own as expressed a few lines previously:

If then there is, as there certainly is, anything divine, what we have just said about the primary bodily substance was well said. The mere evidence of the senses is enough to convince us of this, at least with human certainty (270b10-15).

Ether and its etymological derivation of which Aristotle approves, indisputably occur in Plato’s Cratylus:

The word ether (aither) I understand in this way: because it always runs and flows about the air (ἀεὶ θεῖ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα ῥέον), it may properly be called “aeitheera” (Cratylus 410b).

And in the Epinomis:

The bodies, then, being five, we must name them as fire, water, and thirdly air, earth fourth, and ether fifth (Epinomis 981c).

This is precisely why Aristotle brings established view up, namely to justify his own view. This is entirely consistent with the method of establishing fact on the basis of the three means of knowledge: (1) experience (gnosis), (2) reason (episteme), and (3) established, authoritative opinion (orthe doxa).

He has said that the evidence of the senses (gnosis) is enough to prove his case, but has also presented a reasoned argument (episteme), and is now adducing the evidence of established or right opinion (orthe doxa). In other words, he has established his position.

Aristotle here is not concerned with the Gods, but with the divine (theion) as a principle the existence of which he regards as “certain” and beyond dispute:

If then there is, as there certainly is, anything divine …

Plato (or Socrates) may criticize the way the Olympian Deities are portrayed in popular mythology, but not the Cosmic Gods or the Creator-God, and even less the divine in general.

But we’ve been through this many times already and I’m not going to waste any more of my time.

Regards to your alter ego ….

That’s a totally unacceptable misrepresentation of what Aristotle is saying.

He is NOT saying that it is a view held a long time ago. He says it is an ancient tradition that has come down from distant ancestors to his own day: — Apollodorus

I think it is a very good analogy, just like today, many people believe in God and go to church. This is an ancient tradition which has come down from distant ancestors, just like what Aristotle refers to. The problem is in your claim that this religion is what was generally accepted, and even worse, your claim that Aristotle was promoting this idea which came down from distant ancestors.

You seem to be missing the basic facts of what Aristotle wrote. He refers to all these things, such as the heaven, and aether, as "bodies". He also demonstrates that although eternal circular motion is logically possible, anything involved in such a rotation, or revolution, must be a "body". Then he explains why each and every body, being composed of matter, is generated and will be destroyed. So it is very clear that he has indicated that although the "distant ancestors" believed these bodies to be eternal, he does not. Then, in De Anima he explains why anything truly eternal must be conceived of as non-spatial, immaterial.

This is precisely why Aristotle brings established view up, namely to justify his own view. — Apollodorus

He actually brings up such established views to refute them. But Socrates got put to death for speaking out against such established views, so Aristotle is much more careful. He produces all the evidence required to prove such views as unacceptable, allowing the student to draw the conclusion, without himself directly speaking out against the establishment.

Aristotle here is not concerned with the Gods, but with the divine (theion) as a principle the existence of which he regards as “certain” and beyond dispute: — Apollodorus

Right, maybe you're now catching on. He is not directly speaking out against "the Gods", he is demonstrating that there is a real need for a conception of "divine". But in the process he shows that the established conception of "divine" is unacceptable.

But we’ve been through this many times already and I’m not going to waste any more of my time. — Apollodorus

Yes we have already been through this, and you refuse to acknowledge what Aristotle actually wrote, skimming through the texts, quoting passages which appear to support your prejudice.