Analysis of Aristotle's Views on Causality
A: Aristotle's teaching on causality was in contrast to that of his
teacher, Plato, Plato believed we can recognise an object because our
soul remembers the perfect Form from the Realm of Forms, but Aristotle
argues that we recognise an object because of the four causes that
occasion it; the Material cause, the Efficient cause, the Formal cause
and the Final cause.
The Final cause is a very different cause to the other three. Whereas
the Material, Efficient and Formal causes all relate to how something
exists, the Final cause is about why it exists.
If we take a snowman as an example, then the Material cause is snow,
the Efficient cause is the children who made it, and the Formal cause
is the shape of the snowman. These three causes could be seen to be
sufficient for how to work out what the snowman is, however
Aristotle's Final cause states that for the snowman to be anything,
then it must fulfil its purpose. In this case, the children's
enjoyment.
The Final cause is the most important cause, as it gives everything a
purpose in existing. If there were no Final cause then there would be
no need for anything to exist.
B: Despite the fact that Aristotle came up with his theory on
causality over 2000 years ago, a lot of it still makes sense today,
and unlike quite a few ancient theories, it hasn't come up against a
lot of opposition, and hasn't been disproved. As with any theory, it
has weaknesses, but it has strength as well.
One of its biggest strengths, is that it doesn't overrule other
theories, such as the Big Bang, or God. It requires 4 causes, and so
it can be said that the Big Bang is the Efficient cause, while God is
the Final cause. God fits in quite well with Aristotle's theory of
causality, as Aristotle said that there must be an Eternal Mover,
which cannot be moved itself, for which God seems a reasonable
In what follows, I shall consider Aristotle's’ argument of the polis, or the city-state, as presented in his Politics I.2, and expound on the philosophical implications of this particular thesis; namely, a thesis which claims that the city-state exists by nature, and correspondingly, that a human being is ‘by nature a political animal’. Along the way, I shall present two objections leveled against each claim. The first pertains to the invalidity of the argument on ends; specifically, I shall protest that when a thing’s process of coming to be is completed, even if we regard this as an end, this does not necessarily confer that such an end is a natural end, for artificial processes too, like natural processes, share the potential to arrive at ends. The second pertains to the ‘part-whole’ argument, which in a sense takes from the argument of function. Here, I shall discuss that it is not quite clear whether the claim that human beings - as parts of the whole - are necessarily political animals, and so the view that the state is ‘prior by nature’ is uncertain. After that, I will present two Aristotelian responses against these objections; and judge whether or not these appear succeed. I conclude that he is correct in asserting that the city-state exists by nature, and correspondingly, that a human being is a political animal.
Thomas Aquinas, a leading scholar of the Middle Ages, argued that “Everything in the universe has a cause. Trace those causes back and there must have been a First Cause that triggered everything else. God is that First Cause.” This was known as his “First Cause” argument.
Melissa is more likely to be attracted to Aristotle’s basic orientation and his view on the soul. Melissa’s mind set leans more towards the scientific thought process when it comes to life and death. Like Aristotle her beliefs are more of the here and now. Making due with the reality put in front of them. Even though Melissa’s thoughts and beliefs mostly come with facts she still has some belief that there is something beyond the body that makes Matthew who he is, Matthew. But with that belief she also thinks without brain function there is no Matthew to save. It is a body with no ability to think and live. So like Aristotle she does think that there is a soul that is a part of our bodies. But without the ability to think then you are not living.
Of Aristotle’s three modes of rhetoric, Audre Lorde’s essay is comprised largely by logos complemented by pathos and the least by ethos. Ethos is obvious when she describes herself in terms of social groups, giving credibility to herself to justify her assertions. In her words, Lorde is a “forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two, including one boy, and a member of an interracial couple.” She explains at the beginning of her essay that she has been identified as an active member of these socially taboo groups and thus has the right to demand attention to her claims. Logos is seen throughout her essay, often following a bold statement. Her arguments not only consist of reasoning but also personal experiences and real-life occurrences, such as Lorde’s question of the lacking representation of poetry by Back women and the horrifying female circumcision supported by Jomo Kenyatta in Africa. Lorde’s use of logos is very effective because it gives the reader a relatable narrative to better understand her bold conclusions. The third mode of Aristotle’s rhetoric is pathos, which Lorde uses to a slightly lesser degree than logos but just as effectively. Examples of Lorde’s use of pathos are her descriptive language, metaphors and lists.
Aristotle lived before the writings of the New Testament and the birth of Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem of Judaea. Aristotle was a theoretical philosopher confident that his endeavors to understand the world would succeed. Aristotle agreed with is teacher (Plato) about many things; the existence of God, the presence of oppose in the world, and the creation of the universe, (the connection between virtue and happiness). According to Mason on God and Nature (161) Aristotle (and Plato), played a major part in making belief in a single supreme God more wide spread, the idea of a creator God was not widespread among all the Greek philosophers and thinkers. Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC), often posited first cause arguments, that had certain notable cause, and saw ex nihilo nihil as proof for God and the Creation of the Universe (Mason 3, 28, 161 and Waterman Lecture Notes).
In De Anima, Aristotle discusses the nature of all living things. His first definition of the soul, and essentially his thesis, is that the soul is the “the first actuality of a natural body that is potentially alive” (412a 27-28). However that is definition that requires a lot of expansion to really mean something.
... it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? Moreover, the cause must transcend both matter and time to create matter and time. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.
The great Greek thinker Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. in Stagirus, a city in ancient Macedonia in northern Greece. At the age of eighteen Aristotle went to Athens to begin his studies at Plato's Academy. He stayed and studied at the Academy for nineteen years and in that time became both a teacher and an independent researcher. After Plato's death in 347 B.C. Aristotle spent twelve years traveling and living in various places around the Aegean Sea. It was during this time that Aristotle was asked by Philip of Macedon to be a private tutor to his son, Alexander. Aristotle privately taught Alexander for three years before he returned to Athens after Philip gained control of the Greek capital. During this period back in Athens Aristotle founded his own school, the Lyceum, where he taught for twelve years. In 323 B.C. Alexander the Great died and the Macedonians lost control of Athens. Aristotle was forced to leave and he died one year later in Chalcis, north of Athens, at the age of 62.
Explain the place of God in Aristotle’s view of the world. How does Aristotle think that we can know that God exists? What role does God play in explaining why things in the world exist and behave the way they do? How persuasive do you find Aristotle’s account of these matters?
In Aristotle’s Metaphysics, he discusses what he believes to be the theory of origin. One must differentiate Aristotle’s theory with that of creation. The word “creation” implies a biblical idea. Aristotle was not familiar with the biblical text and therefore did not understand the concept of “creation” in the biblical sense. Rather he was more interested in the “origin” of the world.
Aristotle, the last of the great Greek philosophers. He roamed Ancient Greece from 384 BC until his death in 323 BC. In this time, he wrote an enormous amount of works, a variety of books from metaphysics to politics and to poetry. His variety is exceptionally impressive. His greatest known works are the Athenian Constitution and Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle’s works of Ethics explore a vast area of topics. He states, “The goal of the Ethics is to determine how best to achieve happiness.” In order to achieve happiness, one must live a virtuous life, in the mind of Aristotle.
For millennia, human beings have pondered the existence of supreme beings. The origin of this all-too-human yearning for such divine entities stems in part from our desire to grasp the truth of the cosmos we inhabit. One part of this universe physically surrounds us and, at the end of our lives, consumes us entirely, and so we return from whence we came. Yet there is another, arguably more eternal, part of the cosmos that, in some ways, is separable from the transient, material world we so easily perceive but that, in other ways, is inextricably linked to it by unexplored, divinable forces. The argument of Aristotle’s Metaphysics is not that this worldview is provable or disprovable; the mere fact we are able to reason about abstract objects without having to perceive them is evidence enough of this order. Rather, Aristotle attempts to tackle some of the most fundamental questions of human experience, and at the crux of this inquiry is his argument for the existence of an unmoved mover. For Aristotle, all things are caused to move by other things, but the unreasonableness of this going on ad infinitum means that there must eventually be an ultimate mover who is himself unmoved. Not only does he put forth this argument successfully, but he also implies why it must hold true for anyone who believes in the ability to find truth by philosophy.
Aristotle believed that happiness is the end (telos) that encircles the completeness of one’s entire life. Happiness is not something we attain and lose within hours. Human being’s lifetime cannot be concluded to have been happy or lived well until he is dead or everything is over, which could be related to education. We cannot conclude that a student would have an A at the beginning or at the middle of the semester, anything could happen at the middle of the semester which could set a large or a small drawback for the student. The student’s final exam will determine his/her final grade.
Kirby, M. 1997, ‘Bill of Rights for Australia – But do we need it?’, viewed 30 March 2014, < http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=/A60DA51D4C6B0A51CA2571A7002069A0>
Aristotle made contributions to logic, physics, biology, medicine, and agriculture. He redesigned most, if not all, areas of knowledge he studied. Later in life he became the “Father of logic” and was the first to develop a formalized way of reasoning. Aristotle was a greek philosopher who founded formal logic, pioneered zoology, founded his own school, and classified the various branches of philosophy.