@nigvids @BowsacNoodle @KingOfWhiteAmerica @Escoffier @mackya >why?

The absolute must come before the relative, because the relative by definition is something that cannot exist in itself. The absolute however can, and on reflection it becomes clear that the relative is dependent on what is absolute. If we have something that cannot ever exist in itself, we must eventually end up with something that can exist in itself, or else we don’t have anything relative to talk about in the first place

What is simple must be before the complex with the complex being dependent on the simple, since the complex must have a relative existence. A complex being is for one dependent on the existence of its parts, because without these parts it itself could not exist at all. So we must start with some being that is without parts (i.e. what is simple)

What is unchangeable must precede what is changeable, because change means a movement from potentiality to actuality (look up these terms). In other words, the being changed must have potentiality. The actuality that caused this change cannot come from itself because then said thing would change spontaneously, which is not how things change at all. Things change for clear reasons and don’t just spontaneously change.