(December 29, 2015 at 4:18 am)Nestor Wrote: Moved by a mover or self-moved. In the first case, motion always involves mover and moved, or rather it is determined by a prior mover, its antecedent, and each motion includes something that is both moved and mover, and this in some sense is similar to the ambiguous connection between this moment and that moment in succession. There is, in this case, an infinite regress of moved movers. Otherwise, the chain of movement must ultimately terminate in self-motion, indeterministic, random, resulting from an internal principle or impulse, that, if it had any type of cause or mover to move it, externally, would necessarily be determined by the mover, and not random per se. The difference between motion that I call both moved and mover is the presence of a necessary connection between two distinct states, either physical or logical, while idea of the self-motion as such is that it only relates two distinct states by a relation of temporal succession; it is the creation ex niliho, in contradistinction to its counterpart, the ancient rule that "from nothing, nothing comes."
Is it possible to conceive of a third option vis-à-vis motion?
I confess I'm not understanding the choices. Is this a contrast between viewing the movement of objects as entirely the result of earlier, determinative motions -vs- objects as subjects with intentions whose motion are reflection of those intentions (wherever those may have come from). So the motion of inanimate objects is to be understood by looking backward toward earlier impacts while the motion of (at least some) animate objects is to be understood by looking forward toward the ends which are the goal of intentions. Am I close?
