WikiCritic review: Unmoved mover

This is a sample encyclopedia article review written to support both Seminarium Theologico-Philosophicum and a new project I am working on for the Knowledge Standards Foundation. This page should illustrate what a fairly complete review of a Wikipedia article would look like, according to the recommended standard of the new WikiCritic system I am building.

WikiCritic comment
Page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

This review focuses on the lede both because I wished to get into some depth and because, having dismantled the lede, giving the same treatment to the rest seemed like a poor use of time.

The first criticism I have is about the title. “Unmoved mover” doubtless deserves an article, but between this, “prime mover,” and either “Unmoved Mover Argument” or “Prime Mover Argument,” I would choose “Prime Mover Argument” as the name of a page. The idea of an unmoved mover has very little interest or influence apart from the context of the argument. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy goes even farther, to contextualize the discussion of the concept and the argument in an article titled “Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy,” which makes good sense considering that the argument is not really comprehensible apart from that broader context.

The second criticism is a minor error that comes right in the first sentence:

The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, romanized: ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, lit. ‘that which moves without being moved’),^[1] or prime mover (Latin: primum movens), is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause, or first uncaused cause,^[2] or “mover” of all the motion in the universe.^[3]

“Unmoved mover” simply does not mean the same as “prime mover.” They are different phrases. While “unmoved mover” translates τὸ κινοῦν ἀκίνητον (to kinoun akinēton), “prime mover” translates τὸ πρῶτον κινοῦν (to prōton kinoun, which means first or prime mover).¹ They serve slightly different purposes in the text. An unmoved mover is any mover (i.e., thing that causes change, kinēsis) that is itself unchanged by another thing with regard to a given chain of movement (or change). Similarly, with respect to such a chain, we can speak of the first or prime mover of the chain. Thus, human beings are sometimes said to be prime movers; for example, in Physics VIII.5, a person whose hand moves a stick that moves a stone is called “prime mover” (e.g., 256a8).

This is quibbling, perhaps, but if you can’t quibble about Aristotelian metaphysics, what can you quibble about? And I maintain it’s not actually quibbling because if the concept under discussion is “unmoved mover” and we’re talking about that concept in the context of Aristotle in particular, then it is not restricted to the first mover of the motion in the universe.

There is, I’m afraid, another, related error in that first sentence. Aristotle’s notion is not that of an “uncaused cause.” To say so is to confuse Aristotle’s argument with that of the First Cause Argument.² They are simply not the same. It is essential to Aristotle’s argument that the Prime Mover not be the efficient causal originator of all movement in the universe, because that would imply a first moment, and in Aristotle’s system, there is no first moment and so no first movement in time; as he argues in Physics VIII.1, movement (and so also time) must be eternal. A footnote here cites a 1972 introductory philosophy text by well-known philosopher Kai Nielsen; if Nielsen had said this, he would have been incorrect. In fact, however, he did not say it. I looked up p. 172 in the text and confirmed for myself that Nielsen was not discussing Aristotle there but Aquinas; he was correct about the latter. In any case, it would have been better to cite a discussion of Aristotle’s metaphysics or theology or a book like William Lane Craig’s The Cosmological Argument, which has a whole chapter about Aristotle’s arguments.

Thus the second sentence is also subtly incorrect:

As is implicit in the name, the unmoved mover moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action.

In Aristotle’s system, a sequence of movers can be arranged in a sequence of efficient causes and effects, but it does not have to be; an explanation of motion can be metaphysical, or in terms of final or formal causes. Such is the case with the Prime Mover, who eternally provides the final cause of all movement in the universe.

I think the next sentences, summarizing Book 12 of the Metaphysics which describes the nature of the unmoved mover, are a mixture of correct and overstated. The sentence that follows them begins with something that is too vague and open to objections to be worth stating:

This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek pre-Socratic philosophers, …

The problem is that earlier in the Physics Aristotle goes out of his way to attack most of the cosmological speculation of others. The idea of an unmoved mover is loosely a response to issues raised by the pre-Socratics, but beyond that, no. If anything, it is a development of the argument in Book X of Plato’s Laws. (Plato held that the origin of all motion, especially the circular motion of the celestial spheres, was a self-moved soul.)

… and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas elaborated on the unmoved mover in the Five Ways.

It is true that the concept (or rather, again, the argument) was highly influential in medieval philosophy. First of all, Aristotle’s argument is far, far more elaborate than the First Way. Second, I suspect the authors of the article think it is more like the Second Way (so they suggest earlier; but again, it is more like the first). Regardless, it is a different argument, with some structural similarities. This is an easy fix, anyway: simply specify the First Way rather than the Five Ways as a whole.

I have carefully read only the lede. A cursory skimming of the rest uncovered similar errors, including a “First cause” section that is wrong from beginning to end. So I am reasonably confident of the rest of my evaluation.

Further remarks are below.

Overall: D — Lede: D

I don’t mean to cause offense or dismay but I have to call it as I see it.

Completeness: D

The article makes virtually no effort to lay out what the Prime Mover Argument is, either from Physics VIII or Metaphysics XII. There are only cursory, loosely correct, but strictly (and sometimes wholly) incorrect statements about the concept and argument.

Competency — Lede: F

The sheer amateurism of the article is its worst aspect. Needs attention from an actual philosopher. Perhaps Wikipedians will condescend to permit one to rewrite this?

Scholarship: C

While there were plenty of footnotes, there was little sign of engagement with the literature as one might expect; names I would expect to see (Vlastos, Reeve, etc.) are missing.

Simplicity: B

Simple enough, I suppose, but only by dint of simplifying Aristotle so much as to be incorrect.

Revision: 1365834233
Credentials: Ph.D. philosophy; Area of Concentration in Philosophy of Religion; for many months prior to writing this review, I taught a seminar (having written over 130,000 words of notes for students) on Plato and Aristotle’s arguments for the existence of God.
Stance: While I’m a fan of Aristotle, I don’t find this particular argument to be that compelling; other versions are better. But my stance on it is not really relevant.
Conflict of interest: None known.

This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use.

Footnotes

1. In Physics VIII, examples can be seen at 256a21 and 257b20, just for example.[↩]
2. See Aquinas Second Way.[↩]