OCR special
Aristotle and the causes
Aristotle can make Plato seem like primary school reading. Many of Aristotle’s arguments are dense and complex, so Jon Mayled clarifies what he wrote about the four causes and the prime mover
OCR G571: AS Philosophy of religion
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was a Greek philosopher and polymath. He studied with Plato and taught Alexander the Great. Much of his writing has been lost but what remains covers subjects as diverse as physics, metaphysics, poetry, theatre, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology. His theories of ethics were to some extent rediscovered with the twentieth-century interest in virtue ethics.
A debt to Plato
Aristotle admired Plato and his philosophical work, and worked on many areas which had been addressed by Plato, though often in a very different way. For example, while Plato is frequently portrayed as emphasising the world of ideas and reason as the source of knowledge, Aristotle stressed the importance of the physical world and experience as its basis. These different views are represented in the famous painting The School of Athens by Raphael (1483– 1520), which shows Plato pointing upwards towards heaven and the world of ideas, while Aristotle points towards earth and the physical world.
’Aristotle always acknowledged a great debt to Plato, whom on his death he described as the best and happiest of mortals ‘whom it is not right for evil men even to praise’.
Kenny (1998)
The theory of forms
Aristotle rejected the dualist view of the world and Plato’s understanding of the soul. When Plato propounded his theory of forms, most famously in the analogy of the cave, Aristotle criticised it using what is known as the ‘third man argument’. If a man is a copy of the form of a man, what is the origin of the form of the man? The form of the man is of necessity a copy of a previous form of a man. Therefore we have three men.
In this way Aristotle argued that a copy of a form could simply be part of an infinite series and that therefore the theory of forms is meaningless as a way of explaining the ultimate origin of things. Plato attempted to counter Aristotle’s argument in Parmenides, a dialogue between Socrates and Parmenides.
Metaphysics
The opening words of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ‘All men by nature desire to know’, illustrate his passion for learning about and understanding the world. ‘Metaphysics’ simply means ‘after physics’. This is quite different from what we call ‘physics’. Aristotle’s work has this title because it was thought by later philosophers to come after his book Physics.
Aristotle’s ideas about cause are found in Book 12 of Metaphysics. This short extract lays out some of his ideas:
‘If the categories are classified as substance, quality, place, acting or being acted on, relation, quantity, there must be three kinds of movement — of quality, of quantity, of place. There is no movement in respect of substance (because there is nothing contrary to substance), nor of relation (for it is possible that if one of two things in relation changes, the relative term which was true of the other thing ceases to be true, though this other does not change at all — so that their movement is accidental), nor of agent and patient, or mover and moved, because there is no movement of movement nor generation of generation, nor, in general, change of change.’
Aristotle’s four causes
Aristotle wanted to explain why things exist as they do. He suggested that there are four different types of ‘cause’ or explanation of why any object exists. The word ‘cause’ comes from the Greek word used to indicate responsibility or blame:
■ The material cause is the aspect of the change or movement that is determined by the material which the things are made of. For a table, that could be wood.
■ The formal cause is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing. The wood is cut and arranged to form a table.
■ The efficient or moving cause refers to things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which are the agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter.
■ The final cause is the aim or purpose being served by it. For example, a table is something on which objects can be placed. This final cause is teleological because it is concerned with the function of a particular object or the reason an action is done. Aristotle does not say that there is purpose or design in nature. Rather, he argues that when you think about an object it has a function which is the ultimate reason for why it is as it is.
The prime mover
Aristotle continued his arguments with an observation that everything is in a permanent state of ‘movement’ or ‘motion’. The Greek word from which ‘motion’ comes refers to change. Aristotle was saying that everything in the universe is always in a state of change. He observed that all objects in the physical world were in a state of actuality and potentiality and concluded that this change or motion must be caused by something. This something must be the unchanging cause of everything that exists.
Aristotle argued that if something can change, it must exist in one ‘actual’ state and have the ‘potential’ to become another state. For example, an actual child is potentially an adult. The distinction between potentiality and actuality is an important aspect of his philosophy. He said that if things came into existence they must be caused to exist by something else. From this he argued that if something is capable of change it is potentially something else.
The next question is, ‘What is the cause of motion and change in the universe?’ This is not asking what sets off a chain of events, but rather what the continual cause of change is. Aristotle observed the planets and saw their motion in the universe as being eternal. However, he believed that their eternal motion must have an eternal cause and this he concluded to be a prime or first mover.
Aristotle argued that the prime mover must exist by necessity — meaning that the prime mover could not fail to exist. The prime mover is also not capable of change and so is pure actuality by nature, and therefore its nature is good. He said that lack of goodness means that you can do better which means you can change. Something that is pure actuality cannot be lacking in some quality it should have and is what it should be, therefore it is good.
Aristotle continued by saying that the prime mover is the final cause — the ultimate explanation of why things exist. He went further by suggesting that the final cause leads to movement like the action of being loved in the sense of attraction. The prime mover is therefore the ultimate reason and final goal of all movement. Aristotle explained this by saying that all action is ultimately aimed at the prime mover because the prime mover is the cause of all motion.
The prime mover and God
Aristotle linked the prime mover with God:
‘If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.’
Aristotle argued that God was pure actuality and said that God could not think about the universe and its events, as this would mean that God and God’s knowledge would change. He came to the answer that therefore God only thought of God. Nevertheless, Aristotle wanted to show how God relates to the universe and said that this was as a leader and also in the order of the universe.
Aristotle said that being a leader was the more important, as the universe could not exist without a prime mover. However, he saw all things in the universe as ordered to a final cause —a prime mover. The God of Aristotle, the prime mover, is an eternal, impersonal and transcendent being which does not interact with the world in any way. Clearly, this God cannot act in people’s lives and cannot be experienced.
This ‘OCR special’ is the responsibility of RELIGIOUS STUDIES REVIEW and has been neither provided nor approved by OCR.
References
Kenny, A. (1998) A Brief History of Western Philosophy, Wiley-Blackwell.