Essay Sample on Aristotle's Theory of Causes: An Overview and Critique

Introduction

Aristotle is celebrated as one of the greatest philosophers in human history. In Physics, he proposed that our physical reality is made up of natural things and artifacts. While natural things have internal explanations (causes) that explain their existence, manmade artifacts have external causes. After giving an overview of Aristotle's theory of causes and a critical appraisal of Physics, this essay shall conclude by objecting to the division of things proposed by Aristotle. The paper will argue that is not easy to divide things based on the absence or presence of internal causes. Thus, our subjective views of nature ultimately determine what we consider to be natural (organic) or artificial (inorganic).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

An Overview of Aristotle on the Natural World in Physics

The term 'physics' used by Aristotle has its roots in the Greek word physike which means understanding and studying the natural world (Shields, 2014). Aristotle's approach to explaining nature is governed by seeking rational answers to questions about nature. He develops the four-causal explanatory model because of his basic assumption that most questions about natural phenomena can be distilled into four "why questions" that need four different answers (Schummer 759). It is because, as he goes on to explain, rational answers to questions about phenomena in the world around us must account for causation. He said "..since the object of our inquiry is knowledge, and we do not think we know a thing until we have grasped why (dia ti) it is so (where this is to grasp its primary cause (prote aitia), it is clear that we must also find this in the case of coming to be, perishing, and of all-natural change, so that when we know the principles of things we can endeavor to refer what we are seeking back to these principles"(Barnes,1991:23).

Aristotle appreciates that a cause exists in the world before we even interact with it through observation (Shields, 2014). This appreciation arises from the recognition that there is a danger that a person seeking answers or knowledge about nature can arrive at objectively bad conclusions. These objectively wrong answers rely on causal explanations that are not empirically true (Barnes, 1991; Shields, 2014). His solution to avoiding objectively bad answers to questions about nature is to do the opposite and look for the logical reasons for the state of affairs in nature. As he put it:" One way in which cause is spoken of is that out of which a thing comes to be and which persists, e.g. the bronze of the statue, the silver of the bowl, and the genera of which the bronze and the silver are species"( Barnes, 1991:49 ).

The material cause explanation for things found in nature points to the substance or material (s) they are created from (Shields, 2014). The formal cause definition of nature concerns the observable physical characteristics, shapes or "forms" something has (Shields, 2014: 96-97). The efficient cause explanation justifies the existence of things we observe in our lives. Hence "the father is the cause of the child, and generally, the maker is the cause of what is made and what brings about change is a cause of what is changed" (Barnes, 1991:23). The final cause explanation for things found in nature is anchored in identifying the function(s) something was created to serve. Since his schema of the four causes is a methodology, he is open to the idea that some things do not possess a final cause explanation for their existence. He uses the example of fortuitous events as something which lacks a final cause explanation.

Consider the question "Why does a knife cut meat?" which has different answers depending on whom you ask. One person may give the material cause explanation that it's because knives are made from metal which is a material that is harder than meat. Another may give the formal cause explanation that only a sharp knife can cut flesh. If a person explains that a knife cuts meat because nothing else can cut meat better than a knife that is an efficient cause explanation. Finally, if you respond that a knife cuts meat because that is the function for which it was invented by human beings that is the final cause answer.

Aristotle proposes that a logical answer to questions about nature is satisfactory when it has elements of more than one cause (Shields, 2014). Thus when explaining photosynthesis in plants, a satisfactory explanation not only needs details about the process but also why plants have a mechanism for photosynthesis.

Critical Appraisal

Aristotle's physics is not about natural things in a static sense. Instead, he was convinced that nature is essentially dynamic and that natural things are under continuous development. Thus, understanding a natural thing requires two aspects: we need to know, first, what the thing is composed of, and second how and why the thing alters. In Physics he explains this point by saying that things in the natural world experience a continuous process of change "which is indeed made plain" when one simply looks at the world around them (Barnes, 1991: 3). This idea of change being central to the understanding of nature becomes his main critique of pre-Socratic philosophers whom he faults for not investigating how the world is constantly changing and people witness that process. He concludes that by doing so, they failed in making a rational contribution to the science of nature (i.e. physics).

Aristotle and his intellectual peers never had the tools of modern experimental science (Schummer, 2008). Instead, ancient philosophers like him relied on observing nature and developing an explanation of nature which is rational because it aligns itself with empirical data. His theory of elements is Aristotle's longest-lasting contribution to the scientific study of the natural world until it was supplanted by the Chemical Revolution in the late 18th century.

In my view, Aristotle's theory of elements is an outright rejection of the theory of atomism advanced by Democritus. The theory of atomism proposed that the variation observed in the natural world is attributed to the variety in of atoms that come together to create them. Hence any changes witnessed in nature are because these atoms have separated or have mixed (Yapijakis, 2016). Aristotle's problem with atomism is that it is metaphysically inconsistent (Schummer, 2008). He contended that Democritus' hypothesis that atoms have no material properties ran into the difficulty of not being capable of distinguishing matter differed from the void.

Furthermore, the concept of "void" is not a real principle of nature since voids can't be observed. Thus claiming the existence of voids is like arguing nothing is something that exists (Yapijakis, 2016; Schummer, 2008). Another problem is that since Democritus' conception of matter has no material qualities, it is philosophical speculation when using the shape of atoms to explain the material properties of things in nature. The net result is that atomism is alienated from common sense reasoning (Schummer, 2008). The suggestion that the process of change in nature will eventually stop because atoms which create matter will stop dividing and that matter has no inherent qualitative properties is counterintuitive since sense data suggested otherwise. It is also my opinion that in Physics, Aristotle is rejecting the brand of atomism that Plato advanced. Plato presented his version of atomism as a creation myth in which a divine creator is the one who created the natural world using an intelligent geometrical design on space rather than matter.

Aristotle argued that Plato's take on atomism wrongly combines abstract mathematical ideas of the Pythagoras school of thought with real things in nature (Schummer, 2008). To Aristotle, a hypothesis on the elements of nature should represent observable characteristics of nature. He goes on to borrow the Empedoclian conception of nature because its elements are seen as carrying observable basic properties of matter which are central to the process of change in nature. The Empedoclian conception aligned with Aristotle's empirical perspective on everything. It allowed him to hypothesize that the unique nature of matter is that it is tangible (i.e. it can be perceived by human senses).

What Aristotle seems to have done is to expand the basic characteristics of matter to include the tactile (touch) properties of matter? He continuously refers to things being hot or cold, and hard or soft (Barnes, 1991: Schummer, 2008). He then concludes that for the matter to be an element of nature, it must have one extreme tactile property. Moreover, Aristotle distinguished between passive and active tactile properties. While passive elements of nature are "determined the malleability of materials," active elements of nature can act on other materials (Schummer, 2008: 765). Thus when the heat is applied to water, it expands but it shrinks when removed from the element of heat. The ability of water to be both hot and cold is proof of both its empirical (observable) quality of matter as well as how basic interactions occur between the materials which come together to create water.

Aristotle's conception of the elements in Physics allowed him to give a formal structure to nature (Schummer, 2008). His first claim is that natural things other than those found in the cosmos exist in a hierarchical structure. Since natural things have internal causes, basic compounds owe their composition and character to the elements which they are created from. When these basic compounds combine, they create heterogeneous compounds that may be subsequently combined to create living organisms. To Aristotle, a living organism has at the bare minimum, control over their metabolic functions (Schummer, 2008; Barnes, 1991). Then he suggests that plants are at the bottom of the natural hierarchy because they do not experience sensations or the autonomous power to move like animals. Animals are however not equal to humans because they do not "make things neither by art nor after inquiry or deliberation" (Barnes, 1991: 32). Thus, humans distinguish themselves from animals by having an intelligent soul around which they can structure their existence.

On the other hand, the cosmos have a chronological structure as evidenced by regular and periodical phenomena (Schummer, 2008; Barnes, 1991). Since Aristotle's basic assumption that kinesis must have a cause, he conceptualized gods as the "ultimate cause" of regular kinesis in the cosmos (Schummer, 2008). To him, these Gods cannot be seen but just like human intellect, they have the power to organize the natural world despite their non-material existence.

Conclusions

Aristotle is celebrated as one of the greatest philosophers in human history. In Physics, he proposed that our physical reality is made up of natural things and artifacts. While natural things have internal explanations (causes) that explain their existence, manmade artifacts have external causes. In practice, it is not easy to divide things in the world around us based on the absence or presence of internal causes. Thus, our subjective views of nature ultimately determine what we consider to be natural (organic) or artificial (inorganic).

For example, a perimeter fence made out of plants (i.e. a hedge) is natural to the extent that it is allowed to grow without external intervention, but when it is trimmed and shaped by a property owner, an argument can be made that it has become an artifact. Aristotle, I wrong for suggesting that our physical reality can simply be divided up into natural and artificial things.

References

Barnes, J.(1991). Complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation vol I. Princeton University Press.

Schummer, J. (2008). Aristotelian Physics. KL Lerner & BW Lerner (Hg.), Sc...