Problem przyczynowości nieruchomego poruszyciela u niektórych arystotelików schyłku XVI wieku

Abstract

The Causality of the Unmoved Mover in Some Peripatetic Philosophers at the End of the XVIth Century

The correct understanding of Aristotle’s passages from Metaphysics book XII, concerning the causality of the prime mover, had been a matter of debate since antiquity. Most relevant for Renaissance peripatetic–oriented thinkers were interpretations of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ (the prime mover is only a final cause) and Averroes’ one (final as well as efficient), both presupposing the animation of the heavens. Despite several attempts (like Pedro de Fonseca’s or Ciriaco Strozzi’s) to overcome this exegetical scheme, it appears to prevail in the second half of the XVI century, as revealed in the case of two Pisan professors of Aristotelian philosophy, Andrea Cesalpino and Francesco Buonamici. Their interpretation of the unmoved mover was the polemic starting point for Nicolaus Taurellus’ and Johann Crell’s philosophical theology. Taurellus’ and Crell’s interpretation of the prime mover as a “practical, not speculative intellect”, pointing unequivocally to its “efficiency”, can well be considered as a turning point in the history of the understanding of this Aristotelian topic.