‘Aristotle’s Prime Mover is more credible than Plato’s Form of the Good.’ Dis-
cuss. (40 marks)
Both Aristotle’s Prime Mover and Plato’s Form of the Good offer an explanation to the cre-
ation of this world and influence the ideas and beliefs surrounding the nature and exis-
tence of God. Whilst Plato and Aristotle were linked as teacher and student, their philoso-
phies differ fundamentally, as do the ways in which they reason and justify their beliefs.
Aristotle’s views and explanations for the Prime Mover are more persuasive within modern
society, however, Plato’s ideas have merit and reason and should not be so easily discred-
ited.
The Prime Mover is a result of Aristotle’s investigation into cause and effect, particularly,
determining the efficient and final cause of the universe. Aristotle reasoned that there must
be a cause which actualises the potential in everything else: the Prime Mover. This God-
like being is said to be the first of all substances which causes change and motion by at-
tracting things towards itself and remaining unaffected. The reason for this attraction is the
desire for God which is said to drive all things, therefore, the Prime Mover is the final
cause for everything. The unchanging, eternal nature of the Prime Mover is convincing as
it offers a solution to the otherwise confounding chain of eternal cause and effect which, as
many philosophers would agree, is not a satisfactory solution for the beginning of the uni-
verse. Furthermore, the Prime Mover is grounded in Aristotle’s empirical knowledge that
this world is in a constant state of motion and change, allowing him to conclude that there
must be an immortal, immutable force responsible for the transience of the universe. This
contrasts to Plato’s Form of the Good, which is based upon rationalism rather than empiri-
cism. In this way, the Form of the Good is much harder to prove as it relies on the idea that
humans have innate knowledge which is unobservable. Furthermore, Occam’s Razor can
be used to show that the simplest theory is the most favourable, therefore, an empiricist
theory such as the Prime Mover is more convincing than the complex rationalism of the
Form of the Good. Thus, the empirical nature of the Prime Mover is more credible as it is
based upon evidence about this world, available for all to experience and is much simpler,
whilst the Form of the Good is reliant solely on Plato’s logic.
The Prime Mover is responsible for shaping the Christian God as a result of its simplicity.
In fact, Aristotle described it as “wholly simple”, due to the key idea that God is unchanging
- He cannot think, suffer, or be persuaded. He is also complete perfection and unrestricted
by time and space. However, whilst drawing similarities between the Prime Mover and
God seems to enhance its credibility, it more severely diminishes it. This is seen through
the fact that “it must be of itself that the divine thought thinks”, meaning that the Prime
Mover’s perfection causes Him to think only of Himself and to this extent, to disregard hu-
mans. The Christian theologian Jurgen Moltmann disputes this, arguing that “A God who is
eternally only in love with himself… is a monster”. Moltmann is not isolated in this opinion
as Theists often argue that Aristotle’s God is irrelevant to the universe due to His lack of
interaction with it. If one was to strictly use the likeness to God as a basis for the credibility
of the Prime Mover, they would be restricted as, whilst there is a clear influence, the Prime
Mover and God are too different to be called one of the same. However, Plato’s Form of
the Good can be closely linked to the Christian God. The Form of the Good is the highest
of Plato’s forms, and the “the cause all things”. It is pure goodness and morality and thus,
exemplifies the Christian ideal of an omni-benevolent God. Moreover, it is beyond all exist-
ing things, just as God is known to be transcendent. The Form of the Good is also por-
trayed as the sun in Plato’s Analogy of the Cave, this being a metaphor for ultimate en-
lightenment. Therefore, just as the acceptance and knowledge of God is known to be
recognition of the highest being, the same is true for the acceptance and knowledge of the
cuss. (40 marks)
Both Aristotle’s Prime Mover and Plato’s Form of the Good offer an explanation to the cre-
ation of this world and influence the ideas and beliefs surrounding the nature and exis-
tence of God. Whilst Plato and Aristotle were linked as teacher and student, their philoso-
phies differ fundamentally, as do the ways in which they reason and justify their beliefs.
Aristotle’s views and explanations for the Prime Mover are more persuasive within modern
society, however, Plato’s ideas have merit and reason and should not be so easily discred-
ited.
The Prime Mover is a result of Aristotle’s investigation into cause and effect, particularly,
determining the efficient and final cause of the universe. Aristotle reasoned that there must
be a cause which actualises the potential in everything else: the Prime Mover. This God-
like being is said to be the first of all substances which causes change and motion by at-
tracting things towards itself and remaining unaffected. The reason for this attraction is the
desire for God which is said to drive all things, therefore, the Prime Mover is the final
cause for everything. The unchanging, eternal nature of the Prime Mover is convincing as
it offers a solution to the otherwise confounding chain of eternal cause and effect which, as
many philosophers would agree, is not a satisfactory solution for the beginning of the uni-
verse. Furthermore, the Prime Mover is grounded in Aristotle’s empirical knowledge that
this world is in a constant state of motion and change, allowing him to conclude that there
must be an immortal, immutable force responsible for the transience of the universe. This
contrasts to Plato’s Form of the Good, which is based upon rationalism rather than empiri-
cism. In this way, the Form of the Good is much harder to prove as it relies on the idea that
humans have innate knowledge which is unobservable. Furthermore, Occam’s Razor can
be used to show that the simplest theory is the most favourable, therefore, an empiricist
theory such as the Prime Mover is more convincing than the complex rationalism of the
Form of the Good. Thus, the empirical nature of the Prime Mover is more credible as it is
based upon evidence about this world, available for all to experience and is much simpler,
whilst the Form of the Good is reliant solely on Plato’s logic.
The Prime Mover is responsible for shaping the Christian God as a result of its simplicity.
In fact, Aristotle described it as “wholly simple”, due to the key idea that God is unchanging
- He cannot think, suffer, or be persuaded. He is also complete perfection and unrestricted
by time and space. However, whilst drawing similarities between the Prime Mover and
God seems to enhance its credibility, it more severely diminishes it. This is seen through
the fact that “it must be of itself that the divine thought thinks”, meaning that the Prime
Mover’s perfection causes Him to think only of Himself and to this extent, to disregard hu-
mans. The Christian theologian Jurgen Moltmann disputes this, arguing that “A God who is
eternally only in love with himself… is a monster”. Moltmann is not isolated in this opinion
as Theists often argue that Aristotle’s God is irrelevant to the universe due to His lack of
interaction with it. If one was to strictly use the likeness to God as a basis for the credibility
of the Prime Mover, they would be restricted as, whilst there is a clear influence, the Prime
Mover and God are too different to be called one of the same. However, Plato’s Form of
the Good can be closely linked to the Christian God. The Form of the Good is the highest
of Plato’s forms, and the “the cause all things”. It is pure goodness and morality and thus,
exemplifies the Christian ideal of an omni-benevolent God. Moreover, it is beyond all exist-
ing things, just as God is known to be transcendent. The Form of the Good is also por-
trayed as the sun in Plato’s Analogy of the Cave, this being a metaphor for ultimate en-
lightenment. Therefore, just as the acceptance and knowledge of God is known to be
recognition of the highest being, the same is true for the acceptance and knowledge of the
