Aristotle was concerned with Plato’s idea that the ideal Form only comes from one idea. Alternatively, Aristotle states that he is interested in the matter and why a particular piece of matter exists the way it does. From this, Aristotle concluded that there must be more than one cause for things to exist. With this, we are given Aristotle’s four causes.
The Material Cause this is the substance that something is made from. In an example a TV, It is made from glass, metal and glass. Asking why a TV, it is a great example of material cause because the subsistence that make up a TV (Glass, plastic, and metal) are what makes up the actual TV. The materials themselves when separate are nothing but once they are together they bring about the idea of The Formal Cause.
The Formal Cause- This refers to what gives the matter its form.
…show more content…
In an example, a TV is not just a piece of glass, but glass and metal arranged in a certain way and programmed to work as it does.
TV show the essence of a what a TV is in the manner of what it means to be a TV in this day in age. The TV in it self is not just the glass, plastic and metal in their separate forms but once brought together with the Idea of a traditional TV set. Where the glass is used to show an imagine on the screen and the plastic as a way to keep the metal components unexposed. The Efficient cause, this refers to the reason behind something’s existence. In the example, a TV exists because someone had the idea to build one and put all the parts together to make it
work. The Final Cause, this cause is the reason why something is the way it is. This raises the question, what is the function of the object? Why does a TV have a glass on the screen ?S O that we can watch it? The Final Cause is the reason why a thing exists in the first place. What is its function is intended to do? The TV has a glass screen on the front so it may be able to project the image onto the screen and from there the plastic encases the much of the metal that is able to electronically scramble imagines in the transmitter and then brought to the screen with a projector until finally each second it is framed with the light and glass screen acting like a canvas. B According to Aristotle, there is an ambiguity when it comes to action. This makes it difficult to for us to come to the conclusion of what the meaning of action is. Aristotle leaves us to interpret it as “cause” or “explanation”. If we do point out “cause”: If we as “ What causes something so-and-so?” then from that we can derive four. sentences 1. The TV is made of glass, metal and plastic. 2. Having a screen that project imagines onto glass causes it to be count as a TV 3. Someone manufactures (causes) a TV 4. Having a flat surface made of glass that can transmit imagines onto the screen making it suitable to watch something on it causes it to be a TV. For me to use “explanation” in the example does not really convince that Aristotle really indented to use aition. By using the “cause” and the following example above it flows more naturally as describing something as being caused and its relation to the premises above and below it. Further pushing the point that it is not linear in the sense that there are a beginning and end.
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.
The ‘Golden Age of Television’ is what many refer to as the period between the 1950s and 60s when the television began to establish itself as a prevalent medium in the United States. In 1947, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), and the Du Mont Network were the four main television networks that ran stations with regular programming taking place. (Television, 2003) While regular television programming was a new innovation, the television itself had been commercially available for over twenty years prior to the 50s. It was conceived by many worldly innovators and went through several testing stages before it was finally completed in the late twenties. The three main innovators were Niplow - who first developed a rotating disk with small holes arranged in a spiral pattern in 1884, Zworykin - who developed the Iconoscope which could scan pictures and break them into electronic signals (a primitive form of the Cathode Ray Tube) in 1923, and lastly Fansworth - who demonstrated for the first time that it was possible to transmit an electrical image in 1927. (Rollo, 2011) However, one of the many reasons why this medium was successful in the 50s was due to the fact that it became more accessible to the public. Television sets were more affordable to middle class citizens which created further interest in the new technology. Through an historical account of the medium, the spread of television across America throughout this particular decade will be examined.
Thirdly, Plato and Aristotle hold contrasting views on the mechanism of finding the truth. Plato relied on the ability to reason in his attempt to explain the world. He produced his ideal world based on reason since such a world lies beyond the realm of the five senses. Plato ignored his senses because he believed his senses only revealed the imperfect forms of the ordinary world.
Aristotle was a student under Plato, and although he did not believe in the metaphysical Forms that Plato so firmly believed in, he did apply an element of the theory behind the Forms. Instead, what Aristotle postulated was that there was some ultimate, some final goal to which we all reach, but instead of being some unattainable goal, it was very simple: happiness. Happiness manifests itself in all of our actions, whether it’s a conscious process or not, but when we are truly happy is when we do things that are virtuous and honorable. And instead of being some latent part of another goal, Aristotle stated that happiness was the goal, that there was no higher form to achieve beyond.
Each of the four causes is designed to define how an object is created. Starting with the material cause, Aristotle asks the question of what the object is made of. Secondly, the formal cause, asking what is the object. The fourth way is best understood in light of Thomas’ doctrines on the transcendental, analogy, and hierarchy of being.
Before television existed people had to depend on Radio stations to receive their little bit of entertainment and news. But in 1878, the invention of TV began. The first TV made didn’t look anything like the way TV’s look today. It was a mechanical camera with a large spinning disc attached to it (Kids Work). But as over the years, of course, inventions of different TV’s progressed and by the 20th century about 90 percent of our population had a TV in their household (MGHR). Television today is mainly used for people take a break from their life by relaxing and enjoying some entertainment.
Aristotle’s notion of cause represents his idea of how everything comes into being. All change involves something coming from out of its opposite. These causes are split into four: material cause, efficient cause, formal cause and final cause. Change takes place in any of these causes. A material cause is one that explains what something is made out of. An efficient cause is what the original source of change is. A formal cause is the form or pattern of which a thing corresponds to. And a final cause is the intended purpose of the change. All of these causes Aristotle believes explains why change comes to pass. A good example of this is a baseball. The material cause of a baseball is are the materials of which it is made of, so corkwood, stitching, with a rubber core and wrapped in leather. The efficient cause of the baseball would the factory where the ball was made or where the materials were manipulated until they corresponded into a baseball. The formal cause of the ba...
To know a thing, says Aristotle, one must know the thing’s causes. For Aristotle the knowledge of causes provides an explanation. It is a way to understand something. Because of the importance of causality to knowledge and understanding, Aristotle developed something like the complete doctrine of causality, distinguishing efficient, material, formal, and final causes, and later concepts of causality have been derived from his analysis by omission. Aristotle’s four causes gives answers to the questions related to the thing to help ascertain knowledge of it, such as what the thing is made of, where the thing comes from, what the thing actually is, and what the thing’s purpose is. The thing’s purpose is used to determine the former three, in addition to the purpose being basically the same thing as what the thing actually is, as the purpose of the thing is used to determine whether or not a thing is what it is.
Both Plato and Aristotle are among the most influential philosophers in the history. Socrates was another famous philosopher who greatly influenced Plato. Plato was the pupil of Socrates and later Plato became the teacher of Aristotle. Although Aristotle followed his teachings for a long time, he found many questionable facts in his teachings and later on became a great critic of Plato’s teachings. Since Aristotle found faults in Plato, hence their work is easily comparable as it is based on the common aspects of philosophy. In this paper I will first explain some similarities and then I shall explain the differences between the theories of Plato and Aristotle.
Aristotle ideas of metaphysics began with his rejection of his teacher plato “ Theory of Forms”. Aristotle’s stated that forms are universal and are subject to change. He created main ideas that included categories of reason, syllogism, conceptualism, accidental vs. essential properties, and the four causes. According to Aristotle's, notion of Essential properties makes something what it is, and accidental properties are the differences of an item in itself. For example, there are many different types of Pencils, small, big, pink, black, white, yellow etc. but they are still considered pencils and this is what it makes it an accidental property. Aristotle believed that each thing is maintained of a mixture of both matter and form and the two were not of different realms. By forms he meant essential conception of a thing and its purpose. Aristotle saw only four ultimately basic questions that could be applied to anything, or as he called them, “the four causes”: the formal cause, or what the subject is; the material cause, or it is made of ; the efficient cause what made it ? or how it came to be i existence; and the final cause, or what purpose does it
On the other hand, Aristotle argued that reality is in the natural world and the orange therefore is from nature. Aristotle’s argument was valid and sound. Aristotle was able to reach a logical conclusion with his “Four Causes”. After going through the causes the final cause can explain how an orange allows us food to survive. Aristotle uses his causes to help explain how the orange is part of nature and relates this to entelechy.
Before he attracts any grand conclusions, he begins with the thought of substance, of that there ar 3 kinds: changeable and spoilable (e.g., plants and animals), changeable and eternal (e.g., heavenly bodies), and changeless. If all substances ar spoilable, then final destruction of everything is inevitable. however Aristotle asserts 2 imperishable entities: motion and time. If time were created, then there should are no time before the creation, however the terribly construct of "before" necessitates the construct of your time. On the opposite hand, as he argued in his works of physical science, the sole continuous motion should be circular.
Television is probably one of the world’s greatest inventions. Nine out of ten people won’t know how to explain how it actually works, but everyone who can afford one owns one. There is a lot of debate about whether TV is good or bad. “A television is a device you can sit in front of and watch other people do things that you could be doing if you weren’t sitting there watching them do it.” - Unknown.
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.
¡§It is not Fortune¡¦s power to make a city good; that is a matter of scientific planning and deliberative policy.¡¨ Aristotle, along with most of the prominent thinkers of his time, theorized upon what the Ideal Political State would be and through what means it could be obtained. Aristotle wrote on this discussion of the Ideal State in books VII and VIII of The Politics.