Aristotle 's Understanding Of The Four Causes

Human beings constantly ask questions regarding the nature of morality. In this process of prescriptive inquiry, they invoke specific ethical theories to explain the concept of right or wrong. The reason is that morality is concerned with the question of good or bad of an action. When determining the morality of actions, there are two principles of ethical philosophies that must be contrasted. These philosophies are teleological and deontological theories of ethics. While teleological ethics concentrates on the consequences of actions to achieve some sort of end, the deontological theories assert that morality is an obligation thus cannot be reduced due to the creation of desirable outcomes. Given these distinctively opposite traits of the two ethics, it is obvious that the methods of approaching moral theories are differs from each other. Kant and Aristotle developed theories that are contradicting to each other, however, both of them gives us a reason to ask questions and seek answers. This essay will be analyzing main ideas of two philosophers and comparing the theories introduced by them.

In order to achieve this final, we need to live a virtuous life according to the Golden mean, which is finding the middle grounds of the virtues we live by. Aristotle explains that we should continuously act in accordance with virtues, which are acquired from our upbringing and experiences. Because Aristotle believed in teleology, he said that by aiming our actions toward an end (happiness), our souls need to work in the way of excellence.

23.   Aristotle's concept of the "unmoved mover" or the ultimate "efficient cause" is similar to but not identical with, the later theistic concept of God seen in certain major religions.

Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.

Moral virtue is acquired through the habituation of good acts which constantly aim for a mean between excess and deficiency in each circumstance. It is the choice of moral virtue through our acts, which allows us to satisfy a major requirement for happiness. Virtue, for Aristotle is a state in which reason helps us decide to do good acts. This is a part of our natural function as human beings, since reason is our distinguishing characteristic and good is the always the object of “correct reason.” The habituation of good acts, then, is what leads us to states of virtue in our lives. Since action always implies either pleasure or pain, it is our job to maintain the appropriate amount of each in the things that we do.

Virtue Ethics is centred on the belief that everything has a purpose and that, when something fulfils its purpose, it is good. For example, the purpose of a knife is to cut, and so a knife that cuts well has achieved its purpose. This links in to Aristotle’s ideas about the Four Causes and the Final Cause. Plato and Aristotle agreed that the purpose of humanity was the fulfilment of flourishing, and this is known as eudaimonia. When a person has achieved eudaimonia they will be fully content with their lives and they will act morally because they want to. He referred to eudaimonia as “an end in itself”. Aristotle insists that this telos can only be achieved through the use of reason, since the ‘ergon’ (function) of reason in practice is virtue. He says: “The good

Furthermore, Aristotle believes when the virtuous person does an action only through the sake of it self there is no other means to the end and one will eventually become virtuous. However, when the action is preformed for the sake of something else, then a person will not reach the highest form of virtue. The reason for this is when the action that is preformed for the sake of something else, then it will not reach complete happiness because it will always desire more.

Aristotle's four causes address the issue of change. In his opinion, each change must be directed to a certain end. Thus, in questioning the reasons for change, one may ask four basic questions: What is the thing? What is it made of? What made it? What purpose does it serve? His first cause, asking what the thing is, is also known as the formal clause. Another way of looking at this question would be: What is it's form? As an example, in reference to Michaelangelo's famous David, it's form would be a statue. The formal cause calls upon Plato's earlier Theory of Forms in categorizing objects. The second question, known as the material cause, determines the specific substances from which it is made. Going back to the previous example, David's

Lastly in terms of his understanding of causation, the final cause of a thing or object was its purpose (telos). The purpose of the statue is aesthetic in that it is admired; the purpose of my laptop is to help me do my work well. Aristotle uses the example of health being the cause of walking, 'Why does one walk?' he asks, 'that one may be healthy'. This is perhaps the most important of all the causes. Yet his understanding does not end here. Once something has achieved a state of actuality it is also in a state of potentiality. In this sense we can see that Aristotle saw that the universe was moving constantly between ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ back to ‘potentiality’ once again. This idea required Aristotle to explain things further still because in order for this theory to work it must explain everything in the universe, including the universe itself.

Like in the bronze example he uses, he says that a bronze statue’s potency is not in the bronze itself, but in the bronze's ability to be turned into a bronze statue; a simple cube of bronze is not a bronze statue, but has the potency to become one. Once that potency is actualized and the bronze is formed into a statue, that potency must no longer exist because it was set into motion to become the form of a statue – being a statue is the telos for the potency of the bronze. Or, would Aristotle argue that the potency for it to be a statue still exists because the bronze can be melted down and recreated into another statue? Some aspects of potency and motion, like when potency ends, are confusing to

U28189561 1)Aristotle believes that there are four causes( material, formal, efficient, and final). The final cause equates to being the aptitude of a thing to perform the action for which it was created to perform.195a 2)Our first example will be drawings of known people. The final cause of which would be to spark the recollection of the real person. This is what the picture was created for (to do). A badly drawn picture will inspire less recollection of the person then a well drawn picture making its final cause less effective but still present.

“He also believes self-interest is governed by seeking to fulfill certain bodily pleasures, such as power over others, having this will lead to our happiness” (Camus, 1956). Aristotle on the other hand believes that human nature is focused on reaching an ultimate goal which he calls Eudaimonia meaning happiness, also called the telos. Reaching this happiness depends solely on the goals of the individual and is a process that never seems to end. Once reached maintaining happiness is a constant struggle since Aristotle believes this feeling is temporary, however it strives us to be better than our past selves. The key to happiness according to Aristotle is the use of reasoning in the right way.

Aristotle uses book one of the Nicomachean Ethics to layout the foundational frame work from which he arrive at his theory of moral virtue. He begins by focusing on human activity, noting that all action is directed at something other than itself. He focuses on how each activity a

The theory of the Four Causes refers to an influential Aristotelian principle whereby the causes of movement and/or change are categorized allowing us to have knowledge of our existence and everything around us. Aristotle wrote that "we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its ‘why’, that is to say, its cause." He provided an account of the operation of various individual substances in the universe. Distinctions were made between things of two sorts: those that are contingent on something else’s movement and those that necessary in their own movement. Aristotle not only suggested a proper description of these but also attempted to answer particular questions such as ‘Why does this event happen?’ and ‘Why is this object as

As Aristotle saw his general surroundings, he watched that things are moving and changing in certain ways. Aristotle found that specific things cause different things, which thusly bring about something else. Aristotle trusted that a boundless chain of causation was unrealistic, subsequently, a prime mover or some likeness thereof should exist as the main source of everything that progressions or moves.