How Might Miller Criticize Feser?

I gave ChatGPT the text of the articles Motion in Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein, by Edward Feser, and Aristotle’s Divine Cause, by Fred D. Miller Jr. Both papers are chapters (12 and 14 respectively) of the book Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics, edited by Edward Feser. I really liked Miller’s article, and found it interesting how it could clearly be used to criticize Feser’s article from the same book. So I asked ChatGPT to elaborate on this, and it had pretty much the same idea.

Explain how Miller might criticize Feser's view from earlier

Great question. To explore how Fred D. Miller, Jr. might criticize Edward Feser’s view, we need to consider their respective positions:

---

🔹 Feser's Position (from “Motion in Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein”)

• Feser defends Aristotle’s principle of motion: “whatever is in motion is moved by another.”
• He argues that this principle is metaphysical, grounded in the actualization of potency, and is not in conflict with Newtonian physics or the principle of inertia.
• Feser maintains that even if no physical cause is evident (e.g. in inertial motion), a metaphysical cause is still necessary—ultimately leading to a divine unmoved mover.
• He also defends the coherence of Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover as a metaphysical first cause, essential for explaining why anything changes at all.

---

🔹 Miller's Position (from “Aristotle’s Divine Cause”)

• Miller closely examines how Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover is supposed to cause motion: Is it an efficient cause, a final cause, or both?
• He finds no fully satisfying interpretation:
  • If it's only a final cause, it's too passive—more like a “metaphorical mover” (like Plato’s Forms or health as a goal).
  • If it's also an efficient cause, then how it acts is unclear—Aristotle offers no coherent mechanism.
  • The "untouched toucher" analogy is obscure and arguably metaphorical itself.
  • The “cosmic soul” idea seems promising but contradicts Aristotle’s insistence that the prime mover is separate from the material cosmos.

---

🔸 How Might Miller Criticize Feser?

1. Overconfidence in Metaphysical Clarity
   → Miller might argue that Feser is too confident that Aristotle's metaphysical framework is coherent and complete.
   → Feser presents the Unmoved Mover as a neat solution to the problem of motion, while Miller shows that Aristotle’s concept is riddled with ambiguities—especially regarding the kind of causality involved.

2. Neglect of Internal Tensions in Aristotle’s Theology
   → Feser emphasizes how Newtonian physics doesn’t contradict Aristotle, but Miller focuses on internal contradictions within Aristotle’s own metaphysics.
   → Even if modern physics doesn’t disprove Aristotle, that doesn’t save Aristotle’s system from its own philosophical problems, such as the unclear causal role of an immaterial mover.

3. Insufficient Attention to the Problem of Mental Causation
   → Feser invokes the Unmoved Mover as a kind of transcendent, metaphysical cause of all change.
   → Miller would likely respond: “But how does a non-embodied mind actually cause motion?” Aristotle never solves this, and the analogy to human desire or cognition falls short.

4. Misplaced Confidence in the Principle of Motion
   → Feser asserts that “whatever is in motion is moved by another” is metaphysically necessary.
   → Miller shows that interpreting what that means in practice is much more complex. The Unmoved Mover, even if accepted, doesn’t fit neatly as an “other” that moves.

5. Lack of Engagement with the Problem of “Metaphorical Movers”
   → Feser defends the Unmoved Mover's metaphysical necessity but doesn’t deeply engage with the criticism that it might not be a real cause—just an “exemplary” or conceptual one.
   → Miller dives into that issue, drawing on Aristotle’s own texts to argue that a final cause alone doesn’t suffice as a true mover.

---

🔹 TL;DR – Miller’s Likely Critique of Feser:

“Feser takes Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover as a clear and compelling metaphysical necessity, but my close analysis of Aristotle’s own texts reveals ambiguity, metaphor, and unresolved contradictions in how this Mover causes motion. Even if modern physics doesn’t refute Aristotle, the philosophical coherence of the Unmoved Mover is far from settled—and treating it as a foundational explanatory cause might overstate its clarity or causal power.”

---

Would you like a mock debate-style dialogue between the two, or a chart comparing their views side-by-side?