and drink impels the drinker; just as a woman’s beauty moves her husband until he couples with her, and pleasant fragrances draw the one who smells them until he inhales them. In the same way every enticing, sought-after object moves the one who seeks, desires, and yearns for it—indeed, every beloved stirs the one who loves it.

It is evident that the object sought and loved is not itself the agent that brings into being the very faculty by which one desires, nor the desire itself. Its mere existence is the reason why the seeker wills and acts; it is a final cause, not an efficient cause. The final cause is prior in conception and intention, even though it has no external existence.

In truth, what moves the lover, the enamored, and the seeker is nothing but the image and intention of the desired object that he holds within himself; hence this movement precedes the external existence of the desired object. Even when the beloved is sought for an act related to it—such as eating food, drinking a beverage, or enjoying a woman through looking, touching, or intercourse—the goal of these acts is the final cause. How much more so when the aim is merely to resemble the beloved, with no act directed toward him at all! In that case, the beloved is not the agent of any of the mental images or intentions that arise in the lover’s soul, nor of any of the actions through which the lover seeks to imitate him.

It is therefore clear that, were their claim correct, it would provide no proof of an agent for any occurrence, whether celestial or terrestrial, nor of an originator for any contingent being whatsoever.

Moreover, neither the First Teacher nor his followers affirmed that the celestial sphere is contingent in itself and necessary through another, or that it is an effect produced by its creative cause. They merely posited that the cause of its motion is the very existence of the First.