Philosophy Now Forum

I posted this in the Logic and Philosophy of Math subforum but was advised to post here.

My question was, from an A-T point of view, if something has a predicate F, is it in a genus or species F?

I am thinking of genus as in Aristotle's Categories and throughout his works. In Ari, a genus is a "kind," which is divided into species by various differentiae. I.e. "There are kinds in the sense in which plane is the kind of plane figures and solid of solids; for each of the figures is in the one case a plane of such and such a kind, and in the other a solid of such and such a kind; and this is what underlies the differentiae. Again, in formulae their first constituent element, which is included in the essence, is the kind, whose differentiae the qualities are said to be." Metaphysics V.28, 1024a36-b6. So, e.g. "biped," of which "man" is a species. Or "color," in which white/pale is a species.

I'm wondering whether, if we say there is a genus of movers, the First Unmoved Mover must be in the genus of movers if it is to be a mover. Aquinas does not want God to be in any genus. But he also argues to God's existence by identifying God with the First Mover. And in Aquinas' argument from motion, doesn't the First Mover need to be in a genus of movers for the argument to go through? It doesn't seem to me that one can say that the First Mover is supreme in an ordered series of movers AND deny that the First Mover is in a genus of movers. So the First Mover seems not to be identical with Aquinas' God.

My question, incidentally, is not whether Aquinas (or Ari before him) was right to argue from motion to a metaphysically ultimate. My question is also not about an accidentally ordered series of movers, since Aquinas allows that an accidentally ordered series can go to infinity.

I don't know enough to know the difference between "set" and "proper class"! My background is not in math or modern logic.

Stick him in the genus miscellaneous.

Ficino, your question is answered I believe if you separate the movers from the first movers. This is an artificial separation, if you only consider pure linguistics and semantics, but it allows the First Mover to be a genus, and at the same time to be the only species in that genus.

Thank you, -1-. I had been thinking something similar but not identical, i.e. that the First Mover is the sole member of a species within the genus of movers. And of course, from the POV of Aristotle's categories, the genus in play here is not in the category of substance but relation or maybe possibly 'poesis,' but there are problems with saying the latter.

ficino wrote: ↑Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:50 am Thank you, -1-. I had been thinking something similar but not identical, i.e. that the First Mover is the sole member of a species within the genus of movers. And of course, from the POV of Aristotle's categories, the genus in play here is not in the category of substance but relation or maybe possibly 'poesis,' but there are problems with saying the latter.

I'm humbled by your agreement, ficino, thank you very much. I have to admit I don't understand your reply, as I never read Aristotle. I can't read anything lengthier than a few paragraphs.