Aristotle's Unmoved Mover: Pure Thought Thinking Itself

Hello! Welcome back to our study of Aristotle's Unmoved Mover.

Introduction

In our last lesson, we established through a chain of deductions that if a First Mover exists, it must be an entity of a kind radically different from anything in the physical cosmos. We concluded that it must be immaterial, simple (without parts), and non-spatial, all as necessary consequences of its being pure actuality (actus purus).

This left us with a profound question: What does such a being do? An eternal, unchanging, immaterial substance cannot engage in physical action. Its activity must be of a different, higher order.

Today, we will answer that question by exploring one of the most famous and intriguing concepts in Aristotle's Metaphysics. This lesson directly addresses the learning outcome: Analyze Aristotle's conclusion that the unmoved mover's activity is pure thought thinking itself (noesis noeseos). We will reconstruct the argument for why this must be the Mover's sole and eternal activity and unpack what this dense philosophical phrase truly means.

1. The Activity of a Purely Actual Being

Let's begin by considering the possible kinds of activity. Since the Mover is immaterial, its activity cannot be physical—it doesn't grow, change color, or move through space. Its activity must be as eternal, unchanging, and perfect as its own substance.

For Aristotle, the highest form of activity known to humans is intellectual contemplation (theoria). It is the most self-sufficient and least dependent on the external world. It is, therefore, the most plausible candidate for the activity of a divine, purely actual being. Aristotle identifies the substance of the Mover with nous—mind or intellect.

But if the Mover's activity is thinking, a critical question immediately follows: What does it think about?

2. The Object of Divine Thought

The object of a perfect being's thought must itself be perfect. To think about something trivial, random, or imperfect would be a defect in the thinker. The Mover's thought must be directed at the best possible object.

As we've established, the Unmoved Mover, being pure actuality, is the most perfect, complete, and supreme entity in existence. Therefore, the only object worthy of its eternal contemplation is itself.

This line of reasoning is a strict deduction from the premises we've already accepted. Let's watch a video that lays out this argument clearly.

As the video explains, the argument is twofold:

1. No External Objects: If the Mover thought about the world, it would be affected or moved by that world. Its thoughts would be dependent on an external object, which contradicts its status as the unmoved Mover.
2. No Internal Change: If the Mover were to think of a sequence of different thoughts, or generate a "new" idea, it would be changing. This would imply a transition from a state of not thinking that thought to thinking it—a move from potentiality to actuality. This is impossible for a being of pure actuality, which has no unactualized potential.

The only possible activity that violates neither of these conditions is an eternal, single, unchanging act of thinking about the only object that is as perfect and eternal as itself: its own nature.

3. Noesis Noeseos: Thought Thinking Itself

This brings us to the famous phrase from Metaphysics, Book Lambda: hê noêsis noêseôs noêsis, or "the thinking of thinking is thinking." To fully grasp this, we need to delve into Aristotle's most advanced metaphysical arguments.

The following reading from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a rigorous analysis of the crucial passage in Metaphysics where Aristotle makes his case. Given your background, you will appreciate the logical precision of the argument.

The argument presented in the text can be summarized as a series of logical forks:

1. What does it think? Itself or something else?
2. If something else, is it always the same thing or different things?
   • If it changes its object of thought, it undergoes movement, which is impossible.
   • So, it must be an unchanging object.
3. Is this unchanging object random or is it the best possible object (the "good")?
   • It would be absurd for a perfect being to contemplate anything less than the best.
4. So, it must contemplate the highest good. But is its substance the capacity to think, or the activity of thinking?
   • If it were a mere capacity, then the object of thought ("what is understood") would be more estimable than the thinker, which is a contradiction since the Mover is the supreme being.
5. Therefore, its substance is the activity of thinking. And since it is the most excellent thing, it must think of itself.

This leads to the conclusion: It is itself that it understands... and the active understanding is active understanding of active understanding.

4. The Unity of Thinker and Thought

What does it mean for thought to think itself? This is not idle reflection. For Aristotle, in the highest form of cognition, the distinction between the mind and its object dissolves.

• When you perceive a red apple, your mind is distinct from the apple.
• When you think about the mathematical form of a circle, your mind takes on that intelligible form. The thought-of-circle in your mind and your mind-thinking-a-circle become identified.

In the case of the Unmoved Mover, this unity is absolute and eternal. The Mover's substance is pure form, pure actuality, pure thought. The object of its thought is its own substance. Therefore, the thinker, the act of thinking, and the object being thought of are one and the same identical reality.

This is a state of perfect, blissful, self-contained activity. It is the very definition of a divine life.

Let's read one more short text that focuses on this identity of thought and its object.

As the text highlights, Aristotle connects this state to the highest form of life: "for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s essential actuality is life most good and eternal." The Mover is not a static object; it is a dynamic, eternal activity of perfect self-contemplation.

This concept might resonate with certain ideas in theoretical computer science or mathematics. The Mover's activity is analogous to a perfect fixed point. If we imagine its activity as a function Thinking(x), its state is Activity = Thinking(Activity). It is a complete, self-referential, and stable system that requires nothing outside of itself to sustain its operation.

Conclusion

Today we have delved into the nature of the Unmoved Mover's activity, arriving at Aristotle's profound and challenging conclusion. We have seen that this conclusion is not an arbitrary assertion but the result of a rigorous deductive argument based on the Mover's established attributes.

Key Takeaways:

• The Unmoved Mover's activity must be eternal and unchanging, leading Aristotle to identify it with thought (nous).
• The object of this thought must be the most perfect being, which is the Mover itself. Any other object would imply imperfection, dependence, or change.
• This results in the famous formulation noesis noeseos: a state of pure thought thinking itself.
• In this state, the thinker, the act of thinking, and the object of thought are a single, unified reality. This is not a process but an eternal, unchanging activity.
• This activity constitutes the "life" of the Mover—a life of perfect, continuous, and blissful contemplation, which Aristotle considers the highest possible state of being.

Preview of the Next Lesson:

We have now characterized the primary Unmoved Mover. However, the Aristotelian cosmos is complex. The simple, eternal circular motion of the outermost sphere of fixed stars is one thing, but the planets exhibit more complicated, seemingly irregular movements. To account for this, Aristotle posits the existence of multiple, subordinate unmoved movers. In our next lesson, we will explore the relationship between the primary unmoved mover and the subordinate unmoved movers of the celestial spheres.