Activity without Thought, Unmoved Managers Moving Others, and Egoism

Aristotle’s Conception of God and Modern-day America

Henry Whittlesey Schroeder

[Abstract on relevance to the perypatetik project:

This paper ultimately implies an analogy between Aristotle’s prime mover and modern-day managers insofar as only pragmatists are regarded. Key attributes of the prime mover are shared with pragmatists: action without thought, a preference for management over production/labor, and the tendency to view oneself as perfect.]

 

Two handymen sit on crates next to a bodega not quite like Voshchev and his fellow workers in The Foundation Pit (by Andrei Platonov), but, similar to them, thinking a lot before taking any action such as maintenance or construction work. Most mornings an intense manager deep in thought about himself ignores them as he passes on his morning jog, the beginning of a routine that will maximize his activity throughout the day.

Introduction

One dimension of Plato’s theory of forms that Aristotle takes issue with in The Metaphysics is their static nature or inactivity (1071^b1 19). According to Aristotle, whatever the starting point is for moving things, acting on them or causing change, the origin must not only be activity, but also eschew a capacity since the latter holds the potential for inactivity (1071^b1 19). If we assume that Aristotle’s critique of Plato is accurate, i.e., the forms in their function as a starting point merely posit a capacity to act, and the permanent activity integral to Aristotle’s prime mover establishes an alternative model for grasping original causality, these two divergent models, coupled with additional characteristics, may underlie and shed light on the conduct of the two relaxed handymen vis-à-vis the jogger and, thereby, American society.

The bulk of this paper consists of a recapitulation of Aristotle’s conception of the eternal, immovable, active, good prime mover without capacity. This first part is divided into the prime mover’s three main characteristics: i) active without capacity, ii) unmoved mover, and iii) understanding as the activity of life. In part two, the characteristics of Aristotle’s prime mover will be analyzed as a model for mankind to elucidate some implications for individuals and values in a culture, specifically i) activity without thought, ii) moving people without moving yourself, and iii) understanding as thinking about yourself. Finally, in the conclusion, the Aristotelian model will be associated with the leitculture in America along the lines of these three characteristics of individuals, potentially in contrast to an alternative based on Plato.

1. Aristotle’s prime mover

In Lambda 6-10 of the Metaphysics, Aristotle attempts to prove the existence of a substance that is eternal, immovable and separate from perceptible things, that is, a god (1073^a1 3-4). The first criterion explored in part one of this paper is Aristotle’s conception of such a substance’s active nature without capacity. This is followed in part 1.2 by a summary of how the unmoved substance moves things. Finally, part 1.3 offers a concise reformulation of the key elements of the activity of understanding.

1.1 Capacity and activity

Aristotle starts by explaining three sorts of substances broken down into two natural ones and a third eternal immovable substance (1071^b1 2-3). The third substance must be eternal to settle what Thomas Acquinas, in The Five Ways, calls the contingency argument for the existence of God: If all things are capable of existing and not existing, then there was a time when nothing existed; in that case, however, nothing would be in existence now (Aquinas 381-2; Aristotle 1071^b1 21). According to Aristotle, substances primarily apply to beings and are capable of passing away (not existing), but movement cannot have a before or after, that is, it can neither come into being nor pass away (1071^b1 8-10). It is continuous like time (1071^b1 10). Therefore, an eternal substance must be imbued with some starting point capable of causing change (1071^b1 15). In addition, this eternal substance must be active and it may not be merely a capacity or potentiality since these two imply the possibility of inactivity (1071^b1 18-19): The starting point for the immovable substance must be activity (1071^b1 19). Finally, such a substance must be eternal (1071^b1 21).

Is capacity prior to activity? Although Aristotle rules out that eternal immovable substance can be merely a capacity (1071^b1 18-19), it seems plausible that a capacity prior to activity might give rise to non-activity because it is possible to be capable of X, but not actually realize X (1071^b1 26). Since capacity can theoretically be prior to activity or activity prior to capacity, Aristotle resolves the exclusive disjunctive by drawing support from the positions of Anaxagoras and Empedocles who showed that activity is prior to capacity and thereby ruled out the possibility that capacity is prior to activity (1072^a1 3-9). Aristotle argues further that in a constant cycle an [A] must always remain and act in the same way; if things come into being and cease to be, there must also be a [B] that acts in different ways at different times; this [B] acts for itself and for a third thing [C] or for the first [A] (1072^a1 9-12). According to him, [B] must be acting for this one [A] since otherwise this [A] again causes the movement of that one [C] and the other [B] (1072^a1 12-15). This is the starting point for movements and how they take place (1072^a1 17-19).

1.2 The unmoved mover

There is something that is always moved with an unceasing movement (1072^a1 20). Now Aristotle turns to the place of eternal primary heaven and the something that moves without being moved (1072^a1 24): It is eternal, substance and activity (1072^a1 24). This eternal immovable and active substance bears similarities to an object of desire and an intelligible object because these latter two move things without being moved (1072^a1 24). Accordingly, the starting point is the active understanding, which is moved by intelligible objects (1072^a1 30) endowed with substance as primary (which is always best or analogous to best) (1072^a1 35).

There is also something that moves and is active while it itself is immovable and does not become different (1072^b1 9). That is the prime mover. Its existence is of necessity and a starting point of movement because what is necessary can be a consequence of forced things required for the good to exist and impossible-to-make-different (i.e., immovable) things that are conditionally necessary (1072^b1 13). This prime mover is always in the state of activity, which is also considered pleasure (1072^b1 16). That is why, for example, active understanding in humans is such a great pleasure – the prime mover is bestowed with it and humans possess it through objects of desire and intelligible objects that move things without being moved (1072^b1 16; 1072^a1 24).

1.3 Understanding – the unchanging activity of life

Understanding is realized by participating in the intelligible object and is receptive to the intelligible object and the substance (1072^b1 19-21). It is active when it possesses such an object and substance, so such an object and substance are the divine thing that understanding possesses, with contemplation being the most pleasant and best (1072^b1 21-23).

The prime mover is always in the good state of activity that humans are sometimes in (1072^b1 23-24). He is in this state, and life belongs to him, because the activity of understanding is life and his life is that activity (1072^b1 26). His intrinsic activity is life that is best and eternal – so living, along with a continuous and everlasting eternity, belongs to the prime mover (1072^b1 27-28). Divine understanding actively understands the most divine and does not change its object because that would be a sort of movement (1074^b1 15-26). Understanding in the context of scientific knowledge presents another problem: Such knowledge is aimed at the participle of understand, i.e., what is to be understood, which differs from the gerund, i.e., understanding (1074^b1 37). The prime mover is required for the good to exist (1072^b1 13) so it would seem that the good must lie in the understanding rather than the understood. Aristotle affirms this by asserting cases where the substance and the essence are without matter (in the productive sciences) and involve an account, thing and its active understanding (in the theoretical sciences) (1072^b1 38 – 1075^a1 3). In these cases where the thing understood and the active understanding of it are not distinct, namely where the thing understood has no matter, they will be the same, and the active understanding will be one with the thing understood (1075^a1 3-4).

On the basis of these findings, Aristotle posits a substance that is eternal, immovable and separate from perceptible things (1073^a1 4). This substance cannot have any magnitude and must be without parts and indivisible because it moves something for an unlimited time, yet nothing finite has unlimited capacity (1073^a1 5-8). It is immovable both intrinsically and coincidentally, but it causes the primary and single movement (1073^a1 23-25). Finally, because of its indivisibility as an immaterial substance, the divine understanding does not undergo any change in the parts of the whole – it possesses the good or the best in the whole (1075^a1 5-10).

2. Aristotle’s prime mover as model for mankind

In part two, we will delve into these three aspects of Aristotle’s prime mover as a model for the individual in a contemporary context. Each subpart in the explanatory remarks below corresponds to the respective subpart in part one, setting up the conclusion that Aristotle’s god is the model for the American individual on a personal and social/organizational level.

2.1 Humans acting without thinking

For the prime mover to act, Aristotle infers that the activity of understanding must be prior to capacity. If Aristotle’s conception of the prime mover serves as a point of reference for mankind, this entails that in a person nothing precedes activity. In particular, it follows from Aristotle’s argument that a person does not think before acting. They just act. By ruling out capacity as prior to action, Aristotle has also deprived the prime mover and, by extension, a person of the ability to consider an activity and not pursue it. As we will see in more detail under part 2.3, this is also the reason why he makes a point of attributing the good to the prime mover: If this prime mover does not have the capacity to consider activity, then it must be ensured that he inevitably acts in a constructive manner.

Activity without thought is widespread. Speech is often uttered without any preparation of the thought to be expressed (off the cuff), often resulting in the overuse of filler words such as “like.” Almost all violence is perpetrated without prior thought. Actions organized by socially conscious citizens – such as “rain gardens” on city streets (although no garden wants polluted grimy city street water) or barriers on random subway platforms but not extremely dangerous ones like the end of the yellow line station at 14^th street where you transfer to the L line (there is less than three feet between the central stairwell wall and the tracks) – bear all the hallmarks of action taken without thought. On an individual level, the jogger on the street is not thinking that his activity will lead to excruciating knee surgery later and even more benefits would be derived from walking and yoga (as it would regulate his breathing throughout the day rather than giving him excess oxygen in the morning and a lack in the afternoon when the stimulus wanes).

2.2 Unmoved managers moving labor

As we saw above, there is also something that moves and is active while it itself is immovable and does not become different (1072^b1 9). If the roles in economic activity are broken down into management and labor, with the former giving directions and the latter executing them, it would be managers who emulate the unmoved mover: They use intellectual capabilities (and thereby do not move) to induce motion from laborers.  Our jogger manager is active at a computer, writing emails and preparing written documents, but does not personally cause any change the way, e.g, our handymen do in maintenance or construction work. Extending what we examined in part 2.1, this manager also acts without thinking. In a chain of managers receiving instructions from higher-level or superior managers and distributing them to lower-level managers or workers according to preset rules, a manager constantly acts quasi-intellectually, i.e., in oral or written form, but only in the capacity of passing on instructions, information, etc. At the top of this chain, a chief executive may make a decision in consultation with other stakeholders, but such a decision is generally compelled by external factors (e.g., innovation, need, pressure or expectations). Accordingly, issuers of original instructions also find themselves in an unthinking chain of activity precipitated by external non-human forces.

It follows from these circumstances that the activity must be presumed good, as in Aristotle. For if no thought precedes activity, there arises a theoretical risk that activity will result in nefarious outcomes unless such activity is per se good. Again, as seen in families, companies and society (often divided by political orientation), the activities pursued by consensus do not allow for critique or analysis. They are accepted as good, just as the jogger manager passing on instructions will assume that his actions are for some greater good.

2.3 I understand, therefore I think about myself

Finally, the prime mover’s activity is to understand his own life because it is the best (1072^b1 26-28). This understanding does not cause change to its object because that would be movement, so the prime mover does nothing more than think about himself, as is widespread not just among youths in our day. When the substance of the understanding and the understood is immaterial, as the prime mover is, it remains the same and will not change, analogous to the inflexible positions and views held in wide swaths of the population as the polycrises in recent years have revealed time and again. The god or prime mover is solely understanding himself in an unchanging manner, a statement that would seem less than far-fetched when made about individuals today.

If we return to our jogger and handymen, convention would surely say that a greeting is warranted when respectable people see each other daily. Yet the jogger considers himself exempt from prevailing norms, perhaps because he unconsciously views his mind as without matter, i.e., not existing in the material world and thus uniting understanding with good and the understood.[1] That is, everything in his universe revolves solely around him.  Understanding equates to his thinking about himself, which is taken for good and right, as the jogger will assert based on his material success and we, in general, see in all the “affirmative and positivity movements.” The understood consists of the conceptions and ideas of the understanding mind, that is, each person’s own mind: Who you are is good and what you think is good because you and your mind are indivisible.[2] As a model for mankind, this entails unparallelled self-centered egoism that dismisses out of hand any adaptation of one’s own character on the basis of this reflection.

Conclusion

In the transposition of Aristotle’s prime mover to modern-day individuals, the model of capacity without activity becomes a human acting without thinking; the unmoved mover morphs into a manager, and the activity of understanding assumes the form of thinking only about yourself, and, since you cannot change, that self must be perfect.

Adopting Aristotle’s prime mover as a model for mankind seems to entail action without thought, a preference for management over production/labor, and the tendency to view yourself as perfect. In terms of the individual, it is this type of character that American culture, as expressed through the mainstream media and critically acclaimed fiction, fosters by presenting such figures in a positive light.[3] That is the self-centered manager who jogs by the two handymen. It is not to say that the other type is completely absent. On the contrary, the handymen, the electricians, the supermarket associates, the administrators (non-managers) processing data at the instruction of superiors (managers) may even make up a numeric majority, but they are not represented in a manner fostering identification in addressees. Whether this alternative mindset – thinking before acting, producing and contemplating more than just oneself – can be associated with Plato’s forms, anamnesis or other ideas of his remains a puzzle, but, whatever the relationship, such a way of thinking has been devalued in modern-day America. Rooted deep in what is perceived to be the desired American mentality lies the Aristotelian conception of god.

Works cited

Acquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Trans. by Laurence Shapcore. London: O.P. Benziger Brothers, 1911).

Aristotle, Metaphysics. Trans. by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2016.

Friedrich, Angelika; Smirnov, Yuri; Whittlesey, Henry. Peripatetic Alterity. New York: perypatetik, 2019.

Smirnov, Yuri; Whittlesey, Henry. “The Purpose of Literary Fiction at the Beginning of the Third Millennium.” Foreword to Evanescent. Ed. Friedrich, Angelika, et al. New York: perypatetik, 2022.

Friedrich, Angelika; Whittlesey, Henry. “An Analysis of the Values and Norms of Romanticism and Pragmatism in Literary Fiction.” Foreword to Material Dissent. Ed. Friedrich, Angelika, et al. New York: perypatetik, 2023.

[1] See 1073^a1 4

[2] See 1075^a1 5-10.

[3] See chapter five of Friedrich et al. in Peripatetic Alterity and Smirnov et al. in “The Purpose of Literary Fiction at the Beginning of the Third Millennium” and Friedrich et al. in “An Analysis of the Values and Norms of Romanticism and Pragmatism in Literary Fiction.”