You are right, the prime mover would have to be physical to be an efficient cause.

The books are labeled according to Greek letters. Are you referring to Lambda or Mu?

For fans of SRV:


Great ensemble playing between Bass and second and first Guitar (depending upon the part of the song).

Hendrix does a beautiful rendition on the "Blues" collection, but I cannot find a You Tube version worth posting.

Large counterattacks might indeed carry with them huge risks the Ukrainians don't want to make at least now. — ssu

I imagine force protection has to be the top criteria for such decisions. The Ukrainians cannot assume to know the depths of resources on the other side. There have been remarkably few instances of over extended forces on the Ukranian side. Most of those situations came from betting Putin would not actually do what he did.

My impression from FN calling eternal recurrence a doctrine is that he meant it to be an antidote to the idea of an eternal life that turns our time in this cosmos into a waiting room for death. In that context, it is sharply against seeing one's existence as a cycle through generations. Whatever we can give to future generations is only possible through what we give to ourselves as ourselves.

The waiting room for death is more nihilistic than the death of God as the judge of good and evil.

The problem with their arguments is that everything has potential through their actuality and it can't be proven that matter is inferior to simplicity — Gregory

Do you have a passage of Aquinas that brings this point about simplicity forward?

This, of course, should not be taken literally. The trope is one of Nietzsche's "inversions" of the innocence of the child in Christianity — Fooloso4

The use of "inversions" is an odd feature of Nietzsche's work. He said that one should be careful about what one opposes because it gives the 'enemy' new life. The battle better be worth it.

The idea of eternal recurrence is at odds with the 'future of a species' vision. Each person will only be what they experience being themselves. So, what does it mean to insist upon that necessity while saying other things about the world?

The undeniable is strangely unsuited for any of the available jobs on offer.

And the Aquinas part?

I will be back with my books tomorrow.

I don't know what texts you are referring to assert these statements with such certainty.

Yes, I get the unmoved part. Where in Aquinas does he suggest this agency is not an 'efficient cause'?

Please cite where you read this in Aquinas.

From the point of view in Aristotle, referring to an 'unmoved' mover is the ultimate image of an efficient cause.

Point taken. I see them as joined together. But proceed with the same question regarding 'final cause'.

Prime Mover is only final cause. There is no efficient cause. — Jackson

Rather than present a challenge to this statement, I ask you to provide the basis for it.

The 'formal' cause, by the way, is to say that what one has been made for, is for the sake of fulfilling that possibility to the furthest extent.

That sounds like agency to me. I figure some amount of mutual understanding about this should come before explaining my use of X idea.

I don't understand your reference to this as a 'Christian' idea.

Aristotle clearly does not think God/Prime Mover is the maker of the world. This is a Christian concept. For Aristotle, God has no agency. — Jackson

Aristotle does not assign the role of 'creator of the universe' to the Prime Mover but there is much agency implied in being both the efficient and formal cause of all that is generated. Aristotle does sharply separate what is generated from what is 'eternal'. The discussion has more to do with departures from Plato than anything "Christian".

I don't have an image for what you are thinking of in this regard.

I understand the distinction between methods that you make. I agree with Fooloso4 that people do not build temples to the Prime Mover.

The emphasis upon creeds is not the same amongst different kinds of worship. The difference of methods is not so much about beliefs being 'incontrovertible' as it involves a relationship to a divine agent (or agents). In that sense, Aristotle's god is impersonal in comparison to the Olympian pantheon as well as those groups gathered in particular testimonies of faith connected to a world shaped by our decisions.

So, Paul's faith, for instance, is not a good measure of what giving respect to Apollo or Dionysus involves. The differences of method that separates the 'personal' from the 'impersonal', is not self-explanatory toward the purpose of distinguishing the divine from the natural for all who try to do it. That would clump together what should be seen in contrast.

My impression from reading Aristotle is that the unfolding of beings according to their potential to become what they were meant to be is the clearest encounter with a maker of the world. There is encouragement to become 'more like' this agent but those encouragements happen in the context of recognizing that what makes us is tied to our agency no matter what.

Aristotle is not that far from approaching creation stories in the manner of Timaeus, where we are told constantly that the stories are 'likely' but cannot be confirmed. What Aristotle did with the Prime Mover is to introduce that factor as an X. He does not know the value but can proceed without knowing it. It has a function.

Paul was not content to disagree with the 'natural' world but presented his vision as a "foolishness to the Greeks and a scandal for the Jews," It was a diremption with the philosophical that became philosophical. A personal vision that would sweep away tradition and the 'thinking' of the time which others tried to heal.

That is a lot different from Apollo cutting a deal with the Furies over the limits of revenge.

Well, you asked if Aristotle distinguished the realm of Becoming from some conditions that were not bound by those limits. In the context of asking what is 'theological', that is an important difference to bring to mind.

Quote passages that support your view.

Generated beings happen because they appear through time and so have beginnings and endings as organisms. That element of this life is sharply distinguished in Aristotle from what is presumed to be timeless.

He was looking for the cat; he didn't start from the assumption he had found it. — Banno

I think that is true. On the other hand, he based his model upon separating the 'realm of becoming' from what is timeless:

So, it is evident from what has been said that what is called "a form" or "a substance" is not generated, but what is generated is the composite which is named according to that form, and that there is matter in everything that is generated, and in the latter one part is this and another that.
— Metaphysics, 1033b 15, translated by H.G. Apostle

In regards to recognizing a 'natural' theology in contrast to any other kind, this thing about time and what happens within it is not just a narrative of revelation and what might be promised by gods. Or if it is, then there is no distinction to be made between kinds of theology.

Are you onboard with Aristotle saying that the first principles that bring about the realm of becoming we live in is a matter of what he called "theology"?

There's a legitimate branch of philosophy that is concerned with natural theology. It's defining characteristic is that unlike other theologies it does not rely on scripture, mysticism or revelation. Hence, just talking about god is not sufficient to differentiate theology form philosophy. — Banno

Does the Timaeus count as a proponent of natural theology?

It sounds like the Ukrainians and the Russians had nothing to do with it from that paraphrase. Seems unlikely in view of the "civil" war quality of the participants.

The U.S. has fought a lot of proxy wars. One quality that has appeared consistently in those conflicts is how the people actually fighting for themselves came to use foreign powers for their own ends. It turns out that it is not just a game of Risk.

Who are you quoting?

Whether one describes it as a 'removal of a people' for the sake of doing that or not, the brutality accepted as necessary to achieve goals has been well established. Tough if you are one of the troublesome people.

When one takes it straight without chaser:

I admit that I was fixated on the dental condition of a donkey, but others gave a more serious reply.

Many different people heard different meanings in those words in Matthew.

The Great Schism between the Western and Eastern churches highlighted whether the Nicene Creed should say the Spirit comes from the Father (as was originally agreed upon) or whether it should say the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son.

I figure centuries of religious wars within 'Christianity' should make referring to it as an identifiable object more problematic than is commonly done.

How can information processing simpliciter be the same as a full-blown observer? I think there are too many jumps and "just so" things going on here to link the two so brashly. — schopenhauer1

For those involved with building theories through 'cybernetic codes', there is an interesting model that separates two kinds of cognitive processes and sees them interacting in parallel. The model assumes that stress of negative experiences drives the interaction:

The cognitive system, shown in the left-hand side of Figure 1, is comprised of low-level automatic processing and on-line (strategic) processing that includes the limited capacity “thinking space.” The output illustrated is labeled “psychological disorder” and is considered the consequence of the cognitive attentional syndrome (CAS) dominating on-line processing as depicted. Under different on-line processing configurations, where, for example, inhibition of worry under control of the MCS is specified, internal psychological events will be transitory and therefore not constitute “disorder.”

The need to pay attention is accompanied by a process that gives it a way to resolve the emergency. The system becomes dysfunctional without that relief:

The model highlights clear differences between metacognitive therapy and other treatment approaches in the intended target of change. In MCT, the therapist retrieves and modifies the validity of declarative metacognitions and also retrieves and re-writes the commands (procedures) for regulating processing with the purpose of modifying those involved in the CAS. In contrast, other treatments either do not aim to work on metacognitions or they do so without maintaining a clear structural and functional distinction between systems. But such a distinction could be facilitative in the design of more advanced theory-grounded treatment techniques. For example, if we consider the treatment of low self-esteem, a cognitive therapist will aim to identify and challenge negative beliefs about the self by asking questions such as: “What is the evidence you are a failure, is there another way to view the situation?” but the metacognitive therapist would ask: “What’s the point in analyzing your failures?” and follows with techniques that allow the individual to directly step-back and abandon the perseverative thought processes that extend the idea. Of particular importance, in MCT, the client discovers that processing remains malleable and subject to control in spite of the dominant cognition (belief) “I’m a failure,” thus creating an alternative model of processing rather than an alternative model of the social self (the latter considered a secondary topographic event).

From this perspective the 'perceiver' happens between the processes rather than appears as a result of any process by itself.

Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up from the washing, all of which bear twins, and not one among them has lost its young. — Song of Solomon 4:2

The talk of the 'timeless wisdom of Egypt' and mystery cults reminds me of Madame Blavatsky and the
Theosophical Society.

She, too, embraced Neo-Platonism and antisemitism. She did not, however, refer to Judaism as 'anti-Christian'. That has more of the tone of Marcion, as mentioned before.

The entities are only a sufficient cause if they provide what their absence does not. Simply listing God as a cause is no advance toward explaining phenomena. That is tantamount to saying nothing can be explained.

The point in the article about analogical language does point to something that is not 'univocal' in Aquinas' language. And Aquinas' statement that there is no difference between 'His essence from His being', does not permit predicating His existence as we do with any other thing.

But noting that God is the efficient cause is for Aquinas a given 'natural' function such as Aristotle saw was necessary to explain the realm of becoming. That seems 'univocal' in its purpose.

The onus is on the person providing the book to say what this book must be read, out of all possible books. — Manuel

Yes. Let the onus fall on you.

I don't think recommendations are pointless. I disagree with Chomsky in many ways but respect the way he pulls together what he thinks is coherent. I don't think he would be cool with the idea that his ideas are just one of many. He wants his idea to win.

Well, then, what is Chomsky's reading list?

The novacula occami aka Occam's razor is a principle applied to explanations and simply states that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. — Agent Smith

You seem to be going beyond the necessity of any particular explanation by stating that the restriction suggested by Occam applies to all possible statements.

Yes, much more than the lawns.

I am familiar with Mills, Waugh, O'Connor, and Brooks. Will check out the others.

I think Steinbeck is a part of this. Conformity as a means to survival in contrast to people imagining their future in Dickens.

Rupert Thomson, lives in Veblen's basement, should you check him out.

That in turn goes back to Duns Scotus ‘univocity of being’. It was that which foreclosed the possibility of there being expressions conveying different modes or levels of being. — Wayfarer

One thing I don't understand about Milbank's argument is whether Scotus's 'univocity' cancels St. Thomas arguing that God is simple in Question 3 of the Summa Theologica. There is a list of what cannot be said of him. The negatives are balanced against what can be said of him in the 'voice' of 'natural' being:

I answer that, The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways. First from the previous articles of this question. For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since he is not a body; nor composition of form and matter; nor does His nature differ from his suppositum; nor his essence from his being; neither in Him is composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore it is clear that God in no way composite, but is altogether simple. Secondly, because every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent upon them; but God is the first being, as has been shown above. Thirdly, because every composite has a cause, for things in themselves diverse cannot unite unless something causes them to unite. But God is uncaused, as has been shown above since he is the first efficient cause. — Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Q.3. Art7

Maintaining that God cannot be expressed as a being seems to remove him from the discussion of different 'modes' or levels of 'being' rather than provide the means for such. A better example of the 'univocal' may be Spinoza whose metaphysics does not allow agents of creation to loiter in the hallways.

Apologies to all if this point of theology does not belong to a discussion of the concept of religion.

It has given me a boost when my other guilty pleasures did not.

My interests overlap with many of the books you and the other posters mention as important to them. I am going to check out a number of titles mentioned that I have not read.

Books not mentioned yet, that are important to me, are the wittings of Greeks from Homer onwards. I have spent most of my time in that neck of the wood on the works of philosophy but the plays and poems interest me too.

Some other books I love without having to think much about it are:

Rupert Thomson's Five Gates of Hell
The Poetry of Rilke, Auden, Neruda, C.S Merwin, and Charles Olson.
Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class
Yuri Slezkine's The House of Government
Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series.
Virgil's Aeneid translated by Dryden

I like Bitter Crank's idea for a worst ever list. I am going to slip into a Hazmat suit before entering that conversation.