The Four Causes of Aristotle Essay Example for Free

The Four Causes of Aristotle EssayAristotle, live onence the first historian of philosophy, categorized his predecessors according to how theyve answered the central questions of the hu cosmos mind the question of the first ruler of each(prenominal) things. It is oppositewise known as the Four Causes. He defined science as knowledge through f etceteras. This doctrine of causes is scattered in different Aristotelian treatises but have its highlight in his book Metaphysics.This formula of causality is an essential part of Aristotelian thought. In his mind, Aristotle argued that events happen for a cause which will explain its origin, demise and the way it came to be. For him, everything that comes to be is due to causes. He criticized his predecessors for their not having all the way explained the why of this, that, and so on. Chance, mythology or fortuitous events are not sufficient enough to solve the problem of cosmology. These causes are divided into four distinct types.He developed this principle from the standpoint of being. For this reason, the basic Aristotelian persona is between actual and potential causes, contrary to the traditional division make by the scholastics between internal and extrinsic. As for the actual cause, there is the formal, efficient and final causes and for the potency lonesome(prenominal) the material cause in the traditional scholastic division, material and formal causes made up the intrinsic cause while the remain two makes the extrinsic cause.Each of these causes potentiometer be shortly defined as follows1.Material Cause is the constitutional instalment from which something is made from. 2.Formal Cause means the form of something, it is what determines its essence to be what it is 3.Efficient Cause is the being who made that something.4.Final Cause is that for what pursuit something exists, it is what constitutes the perfection of the being . In other words, it is the purpose of that being. The final c ause is the union of wholly told other causes it is where every other cause can be founded. Cause means (1) that from which, as immanent material, a thing comes into being, e.g., the bronze is the cause of the statue and the silver of the saucer, and so are the genera to which these things belong.(2) The form or pattern, i.e., the definition of the essence, and the genera which include this (e.g., the ratio 21 and number in general are causes of the octave), and the move included in the definition. (3) That from which the change or the resting from change first begins e.g., the adviser is a cause of action, and the return a cause of the child, and in general the maker of a cause of the thing made and the change-producing of the changing. (4) The end, i.e., that for the sake of which a thing is e.g., health is the cause of walkingAs menti one(a)d earlier, Aristotle classified earlier philosophers by what large-hearted of cause is their philosophy. We can tell Thales, Anaximand er, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras and Empedocles in the material cause. These philosophers, though differing in opinion of the primary principle of all things, emphasized the constitutive element of everything.Thus, they are rightly to be numbered in the material cause. The peeing of Thales, the air of Anaximenes, fire of Heraclitus, the atoms of Leucippus and Democritus, the Homeomeries of Anaxagoras, the four elements of Empedocles and the apeiron of Anaximander ( he Anaximander said that the principleand the constitutive element of the things that exist is the apeiron. He was the one who first designated the material principle of all things by this name ) are all primary element of everything for these philosophers, may it be by some other cause or not.For the formal cause, we can only classify only three pre-Socratic thinkers, Pythagoras, Parmenides and Anaxagoras. By formal cause, we mean that it pertains to the form of everything. Let us puree to briefly examine each of these philosophersThe Pythagoreans have thought that the first principle is meter their idea of Numbers is different from ours. For them, numbers have resemblances from everything. Musical harmony for example, could be reduced to a set of mathematical relations. Natural phenomena followed an order ewhich could also be measured numerically the duration of the year, the seasons, the length of the day, etc.Parmenides, on the other hand, thought of the being as the principle of everything. One statement alone expresses the course to follow being is . His being is univocal it can only be apprehended by the intellect. He denied the existence of change, therefore, making his being as something permanent, unchangeable, immovable. It cannot cause something for it will mean to cause a change, thus, we cannot classify being as an efficient cause. Rather we classify it to the formal cause for his being underlies everything, it is actually in everything.Lastly, Anaxagoras, though numbered e arlier among the material philosophers, can also be classified in the formal cause. Because of the numerousness of substances, he concluded that the first principle (in his case his Homeomeries) must, in a way, embody all things in itself.We can also enumerate Anaxagoras and Empedocles in the efficient cause. Let us examine how this had happened. Alongside his Homeomeries, Anaxagoras added some other principle, the Nous (Intelligence). It is important to bear in mind, that the Nous is separated from matter. It merely starts the cosmic movement from where everything starts to divide from one another. Its movement determines the diverse proportion of Homeomeries in each thing. Thus making reason deus ex machina The Intelligence ordains everything that is brought into being those things that existed in the past and exist in the present and exist no longer, those that exist in the present and those that will exist in the future.Empedocles is another philosopher with an efficient cau se. Because of the influence of Eleatic philosophy, he is hale to search for another cause besides the material principle in order to salvage the gentlemans gentleman of phenomena. He put Love and Hate as the efficient cause that unites and separates the four elements. While venerate brings forth together, hate separates. There is a perpetual alteration of dominance between those two this unit of ammunition dictates corruption and generation. Things never cease to change, sometimes uniting with one another through Love and at other times, separating themselves from one another through the divisiveness of DiscordThe final cause the most important of all the causes. In this category we can classify the sophists and Socrates. They have put man as the measure and end of all things. The final cause is for man.Sophism ushered a new era in philosophy as a whole, this age turned to man for the first time. Everything belonged to man. Though sophism had been degenerated into apparent wisd om , with it up to now came the time where man has been the focus of philosophy. His end and his goodness is the final cause of everything. Protagoras, most famous of the sophists argued that man is the one who determines everything, even truth. This relativism of Protagoras is because he based his knowledge exclusively on senses which are constantly subjected to change. This can be summarized on his words in the introduction of On Truth Man is the measure of all things things which exist insofar as they exist, things which do not exist insofar as they do not exist.Socrates, the one who called philosophy from heaven is the foremost philosopher of the final cause. For him the most important thing is for the benefit of the homo soul, ergo, knowing the good. For him the soul is the center of moral life. He identified virtue as knowledge, the mainspring of all other virtues. For him, only in ignorance does one commit sins. In Socratic thought, human dignity has been raised that all t hings are for the good of his soul.These four causes of Aristotle gave a very clear view of the improvement of ancient classical Philosophy, from its coldest principle for all things to the warmest humanistic approach. I am in a position with Aristotle concerning these causes. As for me, the causes clearly demonstrate the history of Greek Philosophy from the pre-Socratics up to Socrates.