We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Myobject in this paper is to discuss the date and significance of the introduction of a plurality of unmoved movers in Met. A chapter 8. As in the previous paper, it will be necessary to give a fairly complete exposition in order that the resulting picture of Aristotle's development may be judged as a consistent whole. I shall try to indicate as I proceed how much of it has been supplied by the work of others.
page 90 note 1 Compare in general W. Jaeger, Arist. Bk. 3 chapter 3, and von Arnim, H., Gotteslehre xv (P. 68)Google Scholar.
page 90 note 2 C.Q. xxvii (1933), pp. 162–171Google Scholar.
page 91 note 1 Contrast Jaeger and von Arnim, II. cc. That I do not see the force of their linguistic objections (‘tautology’ J., ‘Grammatic incorrectness’ A.) I have tried to bring out by translating the passages.
It should be added that, in so far as the possibility of more than one unmoved mover has occurred to A., it has presented itself in the form of a succession of movers, not a coexistent plurality like that described in Met. A 8. The argument for unity which is based on the continuity of motion could only be valid against the conception of a series of movers succeeding one anotherin time.
page 93 note 1 Simpl, . in De caelo, p. 493Google Scholar. 5 Heiberg. For this last para, see Jaeger, pp. 366–368 with notes.
page 95 note 1 Jaeger, pp. 376ff., Arn. 72 f.
page 98 note 1 One of Jaeger's pages has for its heading: ‘Auslieferung der Metaphysik an die Fachwissenschaft’. That summarizes the attitude which I am anxious should at least not pass without further question.
