Talk:Primum Mobile

Untitled

Why has the article been categorised under "early scientific cosmologies" and "history of science stubs"? The scientific method began in 17th century England. The only sciences to have existed before then were formal (mathematics and logic), not natural.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.127.138 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 May 2007

Is there any way to put this into more laymans terms? Seems quite a bit confusing... or maybe thats because it's just a stub... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.32.42 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Science" does not require the scientific method. There are in fact many kinds of science. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives this as the first definition of "science": "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding." It gives this as the second: "a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>." 74.71.76.34 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge to Unmoved mover

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. This is now the oldest merge discussion on Wikipedia, and over a year has passed with no new posts, so I'm closing it at last. I realize that another editor did the same thing a year before and was reverted, so if there is still someone out there who thinks they can build a consensus to merge, I ask that you instead renew the proposal, opening up a new discussion thread and placing new tags. (Incidentally, I noticed that Unmoved mover was never tagged, so if you renew the proposal be sure to tag that one too so that all interested editors are informed of the discussion.) The reason for this is that this discussion consists mainly of three-year-old posts, much of which are spent discussing points that are no longer relevant due to changes in the articles that have happened since. It will be healthier for the discussion, not to mention less overwhelming for any editor trying to determine consensus, if you start afresh. NukeofEarl (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

---

I think the material in this short article would make more sense if it became a section of Unmoved mover.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that this topic can support a stand-alone article; it just needs to be expanded. I'm not seeing a way that this could elegantly be fitted into Unmoved mover. Deor (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that is because both articles need work? Currently Unmoved mover is being worked on. They are essentially about the same subject, but they are currently handling different aspects. (This is more the medieval cosmological aspect, and the other is more the original Aristotelian.) These two subjects might one day have enough material to make two articles but do not forget that merging is no disaster. We can always split when we get to that situation, if ever. Putting both articles together for a while can help focus people onto making one good flowing discussion. Anyway, this article, if it is to be only about the medieval cosmological subject has a questionable title perhaps. Many people searching for Primum Mobile will be looking for Aristotle, and so that creates a problem don't you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't offhand recall the occurrence of the concept of the primum mobile (that is, as a sphere distinct from the sphere of the fixed stars—of course he posited a "first moved" sphere) in Aristotle's works. What is your rationale for saying that this article is "essentially about the same subject" as the unmoved mover article? Deor (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked quickly for something to show Aristotle with Latin terms: http://josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SubstSepar.htm (You can use a word search for the Latin term primum mobile using your browser, and you can see how primum movens is also there. They are two sides of the one coin, and they come from Aristotle.) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The unmoved movers were said to fill the outer void: “It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self sufficient of lives.” (De Caelo, I 9,279a17) Owens, Joseph (1963). The doctrine of being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics: a study in the Greek background of mediaeval thought. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. p. 462. ISBN 9780888444097. LCCN lc66036313.

Is it really a science article apart from what it says about “other” celestial spheres? In scholasticism, it seems like it would have to be the proper topic of theology rather than science, if not for the intelligences and God qua PM.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about the "unmoved movers" in your quotation; it's about the "outermost motion" referred to there, not the "things which lie beyond" it. I think we need more contribution from editors familiar with the history of the concept. Perhaps a note on the talk page of WP:WikiProject History of Science? Deor (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but what are we asking actually? Above you seemed to suggest that primum mobile is not Aristotelian and not connected to the concepts of primum movens and the unmoved mover. Putting aside other points, I believe the Aquinas passage I quoted above, which is a medieval explanation of Aristotle, after Ptolomy, shows pretty clearly that this is all one subject? Indeed, a brief bit of googling will show that the "primum mobile" is often referred to as part of the Artistotelian-Ptolomeic system. If you say not, please explain what your position is. Without such a statement it will be hard to ask around for opinions, or for any of us to go find evidence in order to resolve anything. What is your doubt?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My position is simply that there's enough information about the primum mobile to support a stand-alone article—its function in various cosmologies from Ptolemy onward, its characteristics in Dante's Paradiso, etc. Aristotle's discussions of an "outermost motion" are far from the only relevant information there is about the topic, though they do need to be presented in a discussion of the origin of the concept; and merging this article with an article that focuses on Aristotelian metaphysics leaves no place for what needs to be said in a full presentation. (And, as I said above, I'm unclear whether Aristotle even posited a separate sphere for the "outermost motion" or considered the sphere of the fixed stars to be outermost and first moved. It's been a long time since I've read the relevant material in the Metaphysics and the De caelo, though I will take a look at those when I get a chance.) Deor (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Deor, I didn't say it's is about "things which lie beyond the outermost motion". I assumed you had read the article, it's not just talking the one sphere. You were the one asking about Aristotle… You'll read De Caelo later? Enjoy. You said you can't remember about “a sphere distinct from the sphere of fixed stars—of course he posited a "first moved" sphere”. No, not apart from the fixed stars he didn't. The only analog to any of the three "new", quote, spheres, unquote, mentioned in the article, that are distinct from fixed stars is the Empyrean Heaven. It's guaranteed that the thing about “posited to account for the reference to "waters . . . above the firmament" in Genesis 1:7” ignores any scientific merit. If that means it must be separate from Aristotle, that's just naive or POV. Not only does the article neglect to mention that the spheres are moved by unmoved movers, it doesn't even mention that the spheres are made of aether while the movers are immaterial. And contrary to myth, how dogmatic can it be if astronomer/mathematicians are able to adjust the number of gods/intelligences (poof!) to coincide with the number of spheres needed. You assume it's limited to Aristotle's Metaphysics. It's Physics too. And Scholastic Metaphysics and physics. (Thomas Aquinas was a scholastic). Yep, Dante, Google page one. So how about merging it to Celestial Spheres? The material here is already there with fewer omissions.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And enough with "outermost motion" it's more like "the first movable".—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. That's why I suggested that we solicit wider input. Deor (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You should have said that, but you didn't.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 23:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Celestial spheres, and this article too, seem much informed by this resource, do they not? (bold added)

In the simplified version of the cosmos preferred by medieval writers on cosmology, which ignored most of the astronomical details, each planet required a single sphere to account for its motion. In addition, according to Aristotle, outside the planetary spheres, defining the outer limit of the cosmos, is the sphere of the fixed stars or primum mobile. Several problems arose as medieval scholars thought about this outermost sphere.

One of them was to define its place. The place of a thing, according to Aristotle, is determined by the body or bodies that contain it. But if the sphere of fixed stars is itself the outermost body, there is nothing outside it to serve as container. The natural conclusion of this line of argument—that the primum mobile is not in a place—was too paradoxical to be accepted by all but a few of the toughest minds. Various solutions were therefore proposed, including an attempt to redefine place so as to allow it to be determined by the contained, rather than the containing body.

Another problem for Aristotle's outermost sphere grew out of the account of creation in the book of Genesis, where a distinction was made between the "heaven [caelum]" created on the first day and the "firmament [firmamentum]" created on the second—obviously two different things, since created on different days. Moreover, the biblical text states that the firmament separates waters beneath the firmament could be equated with the sphere of water in the terrestrial region, but the waters above the firmament apparently constituted yet another celestial sphere. Discussion of this problem led some Christian commentators to postulate three spheres beyond the seven planetary spheres: the outermost of these, the invisible and motionless empyreum, served as the abode of the angels; next came the aqueous or crystalline heaven, perfectly transparent, consisting of water (possibly in a hard or crystallized form but more likely fluid, and possibly water only in a figurative sense); and then the firmament, bearing the fixed stars. The total number of heavenly spheres, for those who accepted this line of argument, came to ten. In time, all three outer spheres were assigned the line of argument, and astronomical functions; some scholars, wishing to account for an additional stellar motion, postulated an eleventh sphere as well. It is important to note the mutual interaction between cosmology and theology in these discussions: Aristotlian cosmology was adjusted to meet the demands of biblical interpretation; at the time, the biblical account absorbed the fundamentals of Aristotelian cosmology, with its medieval modifications, and took substantial portions of it meaning from contemporary cosmological theory.

Medieval cosmologists were, of course, interested in the substance or material cause of the celestial region. Many writers of the early Middle Ages, drawing on the Stoic tradition, supported teh heavens to consist of a fiery substance. After the recovery of Aristotle's works, some versions of Aristotle's opinion that the heavens were forced out of the quintessence or aether (a perfect, transparent substance not subject to change) was generally accepted. There were debates about the nature of this aether—for example, whether it was composite of form and matter. Among those who admitted the existence of form and matter in the heavens, some argued that the matter of the heavens was similar in kind to terrestrial matter, while others maintained that the two matters must be totally different. Whatever the nature of the aether might be, everybody agreed that it was divided into distinct spheres, in perfect contact (for otherwise there would be void space), all rotating frictionlessly in their proper directions and with their characteristic speeds. Individual spheres were assumed to be continuous—that is, without interstices or gaps. Seldom did a writer inquire whether they were fluid or hard, both alternatives found support among the few who addressed this issue. The planets were judged to be small spherical regions of greater density or lucidity in the transparent, lucid aether.

A much more hotly debated question was the nature of the celestial movers. Aristotle had identified a set of Unmoved Movers as the causes of celestial motion—the objects of desire of the planetary spheres, which do their best to imitate the changeless perfection of the Unmoved Movers by rotating with eternal, uniform circular motion. The Unmoved Movers are thus final, rather than efficient, causes. Now the Unmoved Movers of the uppermost movable sphere (the "Prime Mover") was customarily identified with the Christian God, but the identity of the additional Unmoved Movers was a more troublesome problem. It would have been easy to identify them with the planetary deities described in Plato's Timaeus, but to acknowledge the existence of any deity besides the Creator would have been a clear case of heresy within the Christian tradition, and it was therefore important for Christian scholars to distance themselves from such notions by assigning the Unmoved Movers a status well short of divinity. A common solution was to conceive of them as angels or some other kind of separated intelligences (mind without bodies). There were alternative solutions, however, which dispensed entirely with angels and intelligences. Robert Kilwardby (ca. 1215-79) assigned the celestial spheres an active nature or innate tendency to move spherically. John Buridan (ca 1205-ca. 1358) argued that there is no need to postulate the existence of celestial intelligences, since they have no scriptural basis, it is possible, there, that the cause of celestial motion is an impetus or motive force, analogous to the impressed force that moves a projectile… which God imposed on each of the celestial spheres at the moment of creation.

— D. C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450

—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

References

This stub has languished since May 2006 without any references and only 29 edits. Also, I see there's some relevant talk page history from 2007 at Talk:Celestial spheres/Archive 1#Unmoved mover in regard to treatment of the prime mover/unmoved movers vs. the sphere itself, taken in isolation. It sounds like a bit of a misunderstanding, but I can't help noticing that apart from 3 edits in January (and a bot), the article had last been edited in 2009, when see also links were added for Primum movens and Unmoved mover (as well as a wikilink for Genesis, which was mentioned in the article, unlike the two closely related concepts).

It seems you have no intention of expanding this article, and I'm not sure why you think the discussion should wait until you “solicit support”. I see there's been size issues at celestial spheres, so unless there are any other target suggestions, it seems like the best hope for this stub is to merge it to unmoved movers#celestial spheres.

FWIW, I think Thomas Kuhn blew impetus way out of proportion (but that's the way his theory blows).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 04:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Understanding deor's concern a little more, I'll give a more detailed reaction:-

• First, if this article is to be about Dante's cosmology only, then first (and most importantly/urgently) it needs a new title. People searching for Primum Mobile are not all searching for Dante's version. They would more generally be searching for information about an aspect of the so called Aristotelian-Ptolomaic cosmology.
• Secondly if it is only about Dante, it is not yet very far along the road to becoming this. The possible existence of a future Wikipedia article about a subject not yet covered should not stop us cleaning up the material we have today.
• Third, I am not confident that such an article about Dante's primum mobile would ever be practical, unless it would overlap almost perfectly with the Unmoved mover article. I realize Dante's variation on Medieval cosmology was a bit unusual, but, as with other writers in Italy, the main way of being unusual was to be influenced by older pre Christian authors. (An article about Dante's world view more generally could of course exist and maybe already does. But we are only talking about one technical term here.)
• Fourth, if this article is about medieval variants of the Aristotelian-Ptolomaic primum mobile, then the same problems still apply: (i) it would also need a new title, and (ii) new material which does not exist yet, and (iii) I still doubt it can rever eally be written in a way which does not totally overlap with any discussion of pre-Christian and indeed Islamic versions.

It is perhaps worth remarking that from classical times until the 1400s it can be very difficult to divide up theories on these things into a chronological sequence. To the extent you could do it, it would essentially be a discussion of Islamic cosmology, not medieval Christian cosmology. Medieval christian cosmology up until Dante, and somewhat past him, was drawing on sources outside itself for its new ideas (classical and Islamic). So to discuss the reasons for the variations, you need to look at a bigger picture. That is what is being attempted on Unmoved Mover, at least for now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you could have got the impression that I want this article to be "about Dante's cosmology only", and I fail to see why an article covering the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic primum mobile along with its role in later variant cosmologies would need to bear any any title other than the one it currently has. One could make a case that the article should be moved to Celestial spheres, but I don't think all its potential content would fit well there. As I said above, we seem to be talking past one another here. Deor (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, but if it is not to be about Dante, then we are back to the earlier part of the discussion. Isn't the future article you envisage exactly what "Unmoved Mover" is about, and what it has made more progress to becoming? Primum mobile is just a Latin term for the same thing - the entity which moves other entities, but is not itself moved by anything else and is therefore "primary" or first. People searching for articles on this one single subject will be ending up at different articles depending on their search terms. I do see how an article about Celestial spheres can separately exist, because having celestial spheres in one's cosmology, as did some Pre-Socratics, does not required the unmoved or prime mover which moves but is not moved itself. It seems to mean that what you are proposing is an article about the cosmological aspect of the concept of the primum mobile. I am not sure why this would need a separate article, and what it should be titled. Why not just handle it in Unmoved mover and Celestial spheres?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no, Primum movens is the "Prime Mover" (God), which is one of the unmoved movers (Gods/Intelligences). Where Ari talks about an unspecified unmoved mover, he presumably means the prime. Primum mobile would be the first movable mover, so to speak, but it's a whole different ball of wax (aether). Still, the spheres are metaphorically associated with their immaterial movers very closely, there's hardly any distinction to make outside of a philosophically rigorous discussion because in terms of the efficient dynamics, an unmoved mover vs a self-moving soul makes no difference. It's the sphere responsible for diurnal motion, so it corresponds in each model to the most superior movable sphere. Thus, under a later Scholastic/Aristotelian interpretation, because Ptolemy introduced a trans-stellar Primum mobile, the Prime Mover must be reassigned to it, (and a fresh unmoved mover is assumed for the inferior sphere of fixed stars). The Empyrean doesn't move so it doesn't count, even though it's outermost. Of course, that's Heaven and they like to dote on that, so it's nice the Prime Mover (God) has some place to live (apparently the Primum Mobile can watch Him vogue from below the Empyrean). Anyway, everything gets mushed together syncretically.

We all share this goal: “covering the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic primum mobile along with its role in later variant cosmologies”. If we take no action, in 15 years or so, it might grow to 6400 bytes… all things being equal. Deor, would you like to suggest an alternative? If not, could you please elaborate on your concerns about the proposed merge to Unmoved Mover? A treatment in terms of celestial dynamics can ignore the purely philosophical issues, but not vice versa.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Have expanded and refimproved article, and would oppose merge on the grounds that the astronomical heritage with which Copernicus/Galileo were wrestling as "Primum Mobile" is very far removed indeed from Aristotle's First Mover.Jacobisq (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow answer, but I do not consider this discussion really very convincing. Jacobisq, you say you improved the article. I note you have inserted a sentence simply stating what we know is not true, i.e. that Ptolemy invented this concept. As a source you simply put a footnote to Dante? Does anyone have a real source to show that Primum Mobile is a concept which is in any way independent of the Aristotelian Unmoved mover?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible outcomes

Please pardon me for the premature closure of this merge disussion. As it stands, I see three possible outcomes:

1. Status quo remains due to the notability of this subject separate and distinct from the concept of "the unmoved mover", or
2. a merge takes place per this discussion, because the subject, "Primum Mobile" is a separate and distinct entity from the unmoved mover, and yet is only notable enough to warrant a subsection of its own in the other article, but not notable enough to warrant its own article, or
3. it is found that Primum Mobile is not in any way independent of the unmoved mover, in which case it barely warrants honorable mention in the other article and should be reduced to a redirect with no actual merge having taken place.

I had assumed that status quo had been saved by the apparent lack of interest and participation in this discussion. Andrew Lancaster, you appear to see option 3 above as the best outcome. Others in the discussion choose option 1 or 2. Since there does not appear to be a consensus for options 2 or 3, continuing this discussion might be like kicking a dead horse. I am not an expert; however, I have in the past read about these subjects and remember that the Mobile was indeed very different from the unmoved mover itself. Whether or not the subject of the Mobile warrants its own article is beyond my expertise, so I will have to leave it to you involved editors to resolve this. I'll put it on my watchlist and check in from time to time, and while Andrew Lancaster is correct that there is no deadline for these discussions (other than they should go on for at least a week), when they get to be several months old without any evident interest, then we can expect someone to ramble by and close it. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Very understandable, so no problem of course. I would add a remark to one issue in your explanation: consensus is not our only concern on Wikipedia, or at least not just "local consensus" on one article. There is a strong community consensus that Wikipedia should not create any type of alternate reality that makes us a source of ideas not already found in good sources. One crude version of this community-wide consensus is the rule of thumb that when someone for a source verifying something which is not obvious, a source should be given or else the not obvious assertion can be removed. The article split/merge we are discussing is at the same time (at least until now) effectively based on just such a non obvious assertion, and I am asking for a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

I think Andrew Lancaster is laboring under a misapprehension here. Above, he has said, "Primum mobile is just a Latin term for ... the entity which moves other entities, but is not itself moved by anything else", but this is incorrect. The primum mobile is "moved by anything else" (the term means "first movable", not "first mover"); in fact, it is is in some sense moved more than anything else. It is the physical entity that rotates once per day and imparts its motion to all the celestial spheres beneath it; it is directly moved by the unmoved mover rather than itself being the unmoved mover. After looking again at Aristotle and other sources, I believe it's fairly clear that Aristotle identified it with the sphere of fixed stars; however, either Ptolemy or his epigones first felt the need to posit a moving sphere beyond that of the fixed stars, since a uniform circular rotation of that sphere could not account for the precession of the eqinoxes—this further sphere is what became known as the primum mobile. Its existence (if not all the details of its relationship to the other celestial spheres) was widely accepted by natural philosophers during the Middle Ages; and mention of it even found its way into imaginative works, such as Dante's Comedy and the Canterbury Tales, where Chaucer apostrophizes it as the "first moeving cruel firmament / With thy diurnal sweigh that crowdest ay / And hurlest al from Est til Occident / That naturelly wolde holde another way".

Most of the foregoing is essentially what Machine Elf said in his last comment above, but Andrew Lancaster does not seem to have absorbed it. I just fail to see how this clearly defined concept, quite different from that of an unmoved mover, does not merit an article, nor how it could be profitably merged into Unmoved mover. Deor (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure Machine Elf would understand himself as saying exactly this. (Maybe he can chip in.) I have no disagreement with what you say about Ptolemy and post Ptolemy, but my concern is that (a) we seem to be wrongly reporting the source of the concept before Ptolemy and (b) as I think Machine Elf agreed, there are aspects of the history of the idea where the two concepts are not always possible to explain separately. Whatever we end up doing, we should in any case please get some real sources? We can not for example be basing a claim that Aristotle did NOT invent something by quoting a passage from Dante?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Some contributors are not aware that Wikipedia no longer boasts of striving for "verifiability, not truth". That phrase has been stricken from policies and guidelines. This encyclopedia strives for "verifiable truth", otherwise known as "facts". A fact is a verifiable truth, so a source from a work of fiction would have to be held as dubious at best. Fiction writers are not necessarily restricted to facts; they are restricted only to what their readers will believe and accept to be possible. The irony is that verifiable truth does not have that restriction – hence the axiom that "truth can be stranger than fiction". Reliable sources for this article should not be difficult to find. Good fortune to all of you! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translation of "primum mobile"?

The first sentence of this article translates "primum mobile" as "first moved," but I think that that's incorrect. "Mobile" is not a past (passive) participle. I'm pretty sure that it is the nominative neuter singular of the adjective "mobilis," which translates as "mobile" or "moving" or maybe, as Deor said on 3 November 2013, "movable." I'm no Latin scholar, though, so I leave it for someone who knows the language better than I do to chime in or make the change. 74.71.76.34 (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That's quite correct; “moved” is simply a mistranslation. “Movable”, “mover”, and “moving” are alternatives in use and do the job. I'll edit accordingly. Desde la Torre (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)