Aristotle’s theory of causation, which he developed in the second century BC, is among his most influential and well-known. His theories have influenced western philosophy in general since his book was published around 2,300 ago. Aristotle believed that it was important to study the world we live in and the causes of the things that happen. Aristotle called his theory “the doctrines of four causalities”. The four causes that are commonly used to describe it are “material,” ‘efficient,” ‘formal,” & ‘final.
Aristotle’s theory on “material causes” is accepted by many as the most basic explanation of causality. We must examine the materiality of these materials if we accept that all things in our world are material. The box made from cardboard or steel is an example of a material. He also uses the material cause to illustrate the object’s properties; knives are sturdy because they are made from steel, for example. Aristotle believed material cause was made up of two parts, the prime and proximate matter. The proximate material is composed of properties. Aristotle may say that the cells in a computer and the electricity it contains are proximate. Aristotle does not believe that prime matter exists. Like many Greeks at the time, he believed that elements were all we could empirically recognize. Aristotle described the prime matter as “pure potency”, which can exist externally in all forms. Plato also had an idea similar to this, which he described in “Timaeus”. There must be another “thing” external that is not included in Plato’s view of forms and even less so his understanding of what drives these forms. Plato says that “all coming into existence” must have a “receptacle”. However, Plato refers to the element of universe as “space,” not as “matter.”
Daniel W. Graham has criticized Aristotle’s “prime-matter” theories, claiming they lead to paradoxes. William Charlton has also criticised the concept, citing ambiguous classifying issues. In his words, “Is it merely a matter of language whether we say nothing remains or that prime material remains?” Both scholars agree that although there is no more to be said, prime matter may still exist. In the end, they say that there’s no way to know if Aristotle is right or wrong, and that this “non-argument” is just a bunch of words.
Aristotle moves on to the idea of efficiency. A knife’s efficient cause would be this factor. The internal motion of a knife can also be attributed to this cause. Aristotle’s theory on efficiency is used in 3 out of 5 proofs St. Aquinas uses to prove the existence God. Aquinas states that since everything that we see has an efficient cause behind it, there must be a start point to avoid infinite regression. The “uncaused causator” is assumed to be God. But a critic of this construction argues that if you can imagine an infinite future it isn’t impossible to think of an infinite history. A related question is if God is a potential infinite regress. By the logic that causation requires, something will always cause the uncaused. Why should we accept the idea that there’s an uncaused causer? Or that it has characteristics similar to the Judeo-Christian God if we do?
Aristotle’s Third Theory of Causation is “Formal”. He argues in this section that matter is only one part of everything. Everything also has form. Form is the thing that defines an object and makes it different from another with the exact same matter. The “forms” of a table or a pencil are very different, even though they may be both made from wood. The formal cause, or “actuality”, is what is meant by the term “material cause”. Aristotle considered the theory on forms to be a controversial and difficult topic. Aristotle’s four causes are very similar to Plato’s “worlds of forms,” yet it is a refined version. Aristotle takes into consideration the ideas of thinkers prior to him while still showing how they differ. Aristotle’s idea is visible in the physical world. Plato’s concept, however, relies on a world that cannot be detected. Form has also been criticized as it does not consider the ever-changing nature of objects or the material realm. We would be unable to consider all possible forms of an item. Even though something might look like a table, the object could be used for other purposes, including as a weapon or chair. This objection can be countered by the idea that a knife is blunt. The formal cause is not affected by the compromise of the efficient cause. It is still a knife. Do mental disabilities and differing views on our telos make someone unable of reasoning a bad human being?
The “final” or fourth cause is also called the concluding one. Aristotle explained the final causation as the reason for which motion is created. This can also be called the final purpose or telos. The final reason is not something external, but a natural part of the object. The final cause of a seed could be for it to become a flower. For a tool, it may be the cutting of a half-watermelon. Aristotle argued that our ability for reason and our desire for happiness are what distinguishes humans from other creatures. It is still debatable if Aristotle was right to say that only humans have the ability to reason. One famous photo shows an ape holding a stick and measuring the water level in a small stream to see if it is possible to cross. Aristotle’s definition of “reason” is thrown into doubt by such examples. Darwin would also be credited with a criticism of the concept of a “telos”. Aristotle’s empiricist nature makes it difficult to understand why he would believe in a “telos” when there are no empirical data that supports a human purpose outside of the one we choose for ourselves. Aristotle is of the opinion that nothing can be described in full unless its telos is mentioned. Aristotle is interested in our telos because he wants to understand our purpose for being. Aristotle argues that happiness is our telos and that only reason can help us achieve it. Aristotle believes that the only way to achieve happiness is through reason. He says we should focus on understanding ourselves and not indulge in the pleasures of our bodies, which he considers “lesser”. Hedonists may disagree, arguing that happiness is found in indulging pleasure and not in abstaining.
Aristotle offers a straightforward way to explain where and why things exist. The argument is flawed because he fails to appreciate the complexity and uniqueness of cases. Aristotle relies heavily on his own experience. But, as Plato has explained, we cannot trust our experiences and perceptions of the world.