Aristotle
“Aristotle’s’ four causes fail as a description of the real world”
The statement argues that Aristotle’s theory of the four causes is impossible to apply to everyday life and cannot be applied to the real world. Aristotle believed there are four causes that determine what things are and their purpose and claims this is how we differentiate one thing from another. These four causes are known as the material cause, the efficient cause, the formal cause and most importantly for Aristotle, the final cause, and these together describe how ‘things’ transform from the state of actuality to potentiality. To some extent the theory of the four causes could be accurate and plausible, however, some of the ideas behind it is flawed and unrealistic. In this essay I will cover the three main faults of Aristotle’s theory. Namely, its lack of clarity, that the theory is based on assumptions and that there is no evidence to support the existence of the prime mover.
Firstly, one weakness of Aristotle’s theory is the lack of support surrounding his idea of the prime mover. Aristotle believed that behind every movement there must be a chain of events that brought about the movement that we see taking place. He believed that this chain of events must lead back to something which moves but is itself unmoved. This is referred to as the Prime Mover. However, there is no evidence to show that the prime mover exists as a reality, similar to theology, for example God in Christianity, as it is impossible to prove this which undoubtedly makes his theory lack support. As well as this, Aristotle’s theory only works if there is pre-existing matter. The prime mover can’t create matter, just in an architectural way. Aristotle said that ‘Nothing can come from nothing’ so this then goes against the Christian and Jewish belief of God as the creator. This means that it is hard for both Atheists and religious believers to contemplate this as a believable theory as it goes against their differing views
The statement argues that Aristotle’s theory of the four causes is impossible to apply to everyday life and cannot be applied to the real world. Aristotle believed there are four causes that determine what things are and their purpose and claims this is how we differentiate one thing from another. These four causes are known as the material cause, the efficient cause, the formal cause and most importantly for Aristotle, the final cause, and these together describe how ‘things’ transform from the state of actuality to potentiality. To some extent the theory of the four causes could be accurate and plausible, however, some of the ideas behind it is flawed and unrealistic. In this essay I will cover the three main faults of Aristotle’s theory. Namely, its lack of clarity, that the theory is based on assumptions and that there is no evidence to support the existence of the prime mover.
Firstly, one weakness of Aristotle’s theory is the lack of support surrounding his idea of the prime mover. Aristotle believed that behind every movement there must be a chain of events that brought about the movement that we see taking place. He believed that this chain of events must lead back to something which moves but is itself unmoved. This is referred to as the Prime Mover. However, there is no evidence to show that the prime mover exists as a reality, similar to theology, for example God in Christianity, as it is impossible to prove this which undoubtedly makes his theory lack support. As well as this, Aristotle’s theory only works if there is pre-existing matter. The prime mover can’t create matter, just in an architectural way. Aristotle said that ‘Nothing can come from nothing’ so this then goes against the Christian and Jewish belief of God as the creator. This means that it is hard for both Atheists and religious believers to contemplate this as a believable theory as it goes against their differing views