Differences Between the Aristotelian Four Fold Theory and The Basic Theory of Modern Causation

1285 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Aristotles view on causality

Aristotle was known as the father of the western causal theory. “To ‘know’ a thing is to know its causes” is something he was also known for saying. He came up with a way to explain causation called the four fold theory of cause. This theory included formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause. There were many philosophers who had agreed with the Aristotelian version of modern causation, but there was one philosopher in particular who argued that the four fold theory of cause was not necessary. Thus, modern causation was born.

The first form of Aristotelian causation is formal cause; this cause focuses on the present. This form involves the essence, form, and nature of things. It plays upon the pure form of objects, then gets more specific with the genus, and then even more specific with the species of said object. There are tons of examples of formal causation- Dwayne Wade plays basketball for the Heat, his number is 3, this counts as a formal cause. Another is the common reference to the television, a television isn’t merely a big glass box but the pairing of glass, metal, and nuts and bolts that allows it to function. The house reference is very common also; in order for a house to exist, it must have brick, concrete, or wood as its foundation so it is safe to live in.

The next form of causation is the material cause; this cause also focuses on the present. Material cause is based on Aristotle’s matter and the principle of individuation. This cause is synonymous to what literally appears substance wise. For example, Vogue magazine literally consist of picture, paper, and ink. When you see an average television, it is made up of plastic, glass, and/or metal substances. The house that someone might live in ...

... middle of paper ...

...y of modern causation are pretty clear. William of Ockham agreed with only one of Aristotle’s theories of causation but argued that the other three weren’t valid because of the lack of human experience within each theory. The Aristotelian four fold theory of causation consisted of four main causes: formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause. All of the Aristotelian causes focused on a certain time period- the past, present or the future, which impacted the interpretation of each theory itself. Formal cause and material cause are focused on the past, efficient cause is focused on the present time; while lastly, final cause is focused on the future. Efficient cause was deemed to be the most important out of the four by William of Ockham. Those are the differences between the Aristotelian four fold theory of causation and general modern causation.

Show More
Related

  • Stoic Hypocrisy and the Corporeality of Lekta

    2348 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...tal explanation for cause and effect. In accepting what they propose about causality, we must reject numerous integral aspects of their philosophy, as well as common sense. Legitimate causation must, at the very least, produce an effect which is corporeal. Bodies act upon each other in many ways, and we cannot exclude causation as one of those modes in which bodies are affected. The Stoics made interesting assertions about causality, but were too blindsided by their own determinism to realize the contradiction it proved to be for their own philosophy. Alas, so it was fated.

    Read More

  • Hume's and Anscombe's View on Causation

    1237 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hume’s notion of causation is his regularity theory. Hume explains his regularity theory in two ways: (1) “we may define a cause to be an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second” (2) “if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.”

    Read More

  • Aristotle's Four Main Causes

    1966 Words  | 4 Pages

    Drawing from Ph.II.3 and Metaph.I.3 Aristotle’s accounts for four specific causes of things; Modification takes place bestowing to four dissimilar kinds of cause. These causes may also be elucidated as explanations; they describe diverse ways of why the change came to be. The four causes are material cause, which explains what something is made of; formal cause, which explains the form or pattern to which a thing corresponds; efficient cause, which is what we ordinarily mean by “cause,” the original source of the change; and final cause, which is the intended purpose of the change. For example, when making a car, the material cause is the materials the car is made of, the formal cause is the engineers design, the efficient cause is the development of building it, and the final cause is to provide a form of transportation to arriving and leaving one place to another. Natural objects, such as fl...

    Read More

  • Determinism And Capitalism: An Analysis Of David Hume's Compatibilism

    1132 Words  | 3 Pages

    In support of this claims, he issues in a physical cause and effect concept that ideally relates to the human agents. Therefore, it can be deduced that necessity based causation arises from the uniformity observable operations of an individual, where one’s minds is jointly determined by a moral obligation. Further, the philosopher offers two dispositions to help explain the notion of Compatibilism. The first part supposes that there is a constant combination of two similar events, whereas the second one presumes that human’s consequence can be inferred from one to the other. On the contrary, he argues that still his concept is universally accepted as an abstract knowledge among beings though people may not see a necessity combination between a cause and effect

    Read More

  • The Egocentric Predicament

    482 Words  | 1 Pages

    In science, Hume recognized a problem with scientific causality. He saw science as being based on inductive reasoning, which results in generalized rules or principles.

    Read More

  • Reviving Psychophysical Supervenience

    2656 Words  | 6 Pages

    ...dson, ‘Thinking Causes’, in Mental Causation, ed. John Heil and Alfred Mele (Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1993) p. 13.

    Read More

  • Kant's Second Analogy

    4263 Words  | 9 Pages

    In this paper I will present an argument I have found in the Second Analogy for the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event. I will begin by briefly describing Robert Paul W...

    Read More

  • Bertrand Russell and Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Arguments on God's Existence

    595 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...t causation argument reasoned out in the first place. There had to be a beginning because “If there were no first efficient cause, there would be no last or intermediary efficient causes” (Aquinas, 45).

    Read More

  • Cicero and Stoicism

    3690 Words  | 8 Pages

    In contrast, Aristotle understood the underlying forces and influences that transpired when a state degraded. Cicero quite frankly could not understand the forces which Aristotle so eloquently denoted. For Cicero, history offered the only possible paths of outcomes; the forces and behaviors played little part on the resulting state.2

    Read More

  • The Unmoved Mover: God in Aristotle’s Metaphysics

    1471 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...e ultimate cause of everything? While its minor problems are resolved quite easily, Aristotle’s argument for the unmoved mover is predicated on a premise of unknown stability: philosophy. At the heart of the issue is the very nature of philosophy itself and its ability to tackle questions of any magnitude. If everything is knowable, and philosophy is the path to knowledge, then everything must be knowable through philosophy, yet the ad infinitum paradox Aristotle faces is one that shows that the weakest part of his argument is the fact it relies on the abovementioned characteristics of philosophy. If any one of those is wrong, his proof crumbles and the timeless God in which he believes goes along with it, but if they are all right, then there is one God, immovable and actuality, for as Aristotle says, “The rule of many is not good; let there be one ruler” (1076a).

    Read More

  • Hume's Ideas on Cause and Effect

    684 Words  | 2 Pages

    Cause and effect is a tool used to link happenings together and create some sort of explanation. Hume lists the “three principles of connexion among ideas” to show the different ways ideas can be associated with one another (14). The principles are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. The focus of much of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding falls upon the third listed principle. In Section I, Hume emphasizes the need to uncover the truths about the human mind, even though the process may be strenuous and fatiguing. While the principle of cause and effect is something utilized so often, Hume claims that what we conclude through this process cannot be attributed to reason or understanding and instead must be attributed to custom of habit.

    Read More

  • Agent Causation and Dualism

    1639 Words  | 4 Pages

    The discussion of free will and its compatibility with determinism comes down to one’s conception of actions. Most philosophers and physicists would agree that events have specific causes, especially events in nature. The question becomes more controversial when philosophers discuss the interaction between human beings, or agents, and the world. If one holds the belief that all actions and events are caused by prior events, it would seem as though he would be accepting determinism. For if an event has a particular cause, the event which follows must be predetermined, even if this cause relates to a decision by a human being. Agent causation becomes important for many philosophers who, like me, refuse to accept the absence of free will in the universe.

    Read More

  • David Hume’s Two Definitions of Cause

    3277 Words  | 7 Pages

    David Hume’s two definitions of cause found in both A Treatise of Human Nature, and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding have been the center of much controversy in regards to his actual view of causation. Much of the debate centers on the lack of consistency between the two definitions and also with the definitions as a part of the greater text. As for the latter objection, much of the inconsistency can be remedied by sticking to the account presented in the Enquiry, as Hume makes explicit in the Author’s Advertisement that the Treatise was a “work which the Author [Hume] had projected before he left College, and which he wrote and published not long after. But not finding it successful, he was sensible of his error in going to the press to early, and he cast the whole anew in the following pieces, where some negligence in his former reasoning and more in the expression, are, he hopes, corrected.” (Hume 1772, xxxi) Generally the inconsistencies are cited from the Treatise, which fails to recognize the purpose of the Enquiry. This brings us to the possible tension between the two definitions. J.A. Robinson, for example, believes the two definitions cannot refer to the same thing. Don Garrett feels that the two definitions are possible, but only with further interpretation. I will argue that the tension arises from a possible forgetfulness on the part of the reader about Hume’s aims as a philosopher, and that Hume’s Enquiry stands on its own without any need for a critic’s extrapolations. To understand Hume’s interpretation of causation and the arguments against it, we must first follow the steps Hume took to come to his conclusion. This requires brief consideration of Hume’s copy princi...

    Read More

  • Thomas Aquinas's Five Arguments For The Existence Of God

    637 Words  | 2 Pages

    Similarly, Aquinas discusses efficient causes. An efficient cause is what we simply refer to as a cause, in other words that which causes an action or event. The first efficient cause leads to

    Read More

  • Mathematical Logic

    778 Words  | 2 Pages

    As time went on people did not make new theories as much as they used to in the time of Aristotle. They mostly concentrated on expanding on theories that have been said centuries ago, proving those theories or putting them into symbolic form.

    Read More

More about Differences Between the Aristotelian Four Fold Theory and The Basic Theory of Modern Causation

Open Document