It seems Dan Peterson took note of my recent blog post about his misuse of Aristotle and sought the advice of one Daniel W. Graham of BYU’s Philosophy Department. I’m not sure what exactly to make of Dr. Graham’s comments just yet, because I don’t see how they help Dan’s position at all. In any case, because I don’t allow comments on this blog, I always give others the last word. So here in Dr. Graham’s comments from an e-mail published by Dan:
What you have said about the UM seems to be exactly right, and what “Servile Conformist” says seems to mistake Aristotle’s theory. The UM is an unmoved mover because he, or rather it, inspires desire in the heavenly spheres. The heavenly spheres consequently go around, and thereby cause the seasonal changes on the earth. According to Aristotle’s four cause theory, which I know you know, but I’m not so sure about SC, the UM is purely a final cause. SC seems to think that the fact that the UM moves things makes it an efficient cause. But of course it doesn’t. The physics for this is in Physics VIII, which also allows for only one-way causation. And according to what Aristotle says in Met. XII, the UM just contemplates itself—as you said. By Aristotle’s premises, it can’t think about anything inferior to itself, like you, me, and SC. The UM is not a personal God in my conception of ‘personal.’ And while love makes Aristotle’s world go around, it is the love of the intelligences of the spheres for the UM. The UM, whom Aristotle explicitly calls God, does not return the love of the spheres, or philosophers, or whoever might worship it, because it does not know we exist, or care.
You are welcome to quote me. But my suggestion is that you just ignore SC. Having a blog gives one a forum to pontificate, but no credentials and no legitimacy. And if one’s blog is anonymous—one is just Anonymus Blogensis. I like the New Yorker cartoon that shows a dog at the keyboard who says to another of his species, “On the internet no one can tell you’re a dog.” Don’t throw SC a bone.
