Aristotle's Four Causes

The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle 's key study of morality and the final goal of human life, has for many years been a popular and persuasive book. It offers the modern reader many useful insights into human desires and behavior despite being thousands of years old. The overarching theme behind this book is Aristotle 's assertion that there are no recognized unconditional moral standards and that every ethical theory must take into consideration an understanding of psychology and knowing that behavior comes from the realities of human nature and how it affects daily life. Additionally, the book echoes Aristotle 's accomplishments in other areas of philosophy and is a good display of his methodological thought process, which is widely considered to be the root of all modern science examination.

Throughout this Book 1, the discussion digresses multiple times to explore the method by which the topic will be examined. Realising that concepts such as happiness are subjective, he establishes in the third Chapter that the fruits of the discussion will be satisfactory so long as it holds true universally. He also considers in Chapter four whether the discussion should originate from the principles, or from our experiences, and suggests that we should being from things known and immediate to us, which seems to be a logical choice as the discussions as a whole focus on what a man should do in order to act according to virtue in order to become good and attain happiness. In addition, the sixth Chapter is devoted to criticism of the theory of Forms. Since good can exist in so many different ways, but are undoubtedly good, Aristotle argues that there is no common idea governing it. He also denies the existence of separate Forms that are merely mimicked by what we perceive, since a thing and the Thing Itself has the same

To get a sense of what it is to be human, at least in the evolutionary world, we need only to compare our modern selves to our ancestors such as the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals were our closest hominin relative and died out thousands of years ago. Like us, they walked on two legs, hunted , made fire and tools, and lived in shelters (caves). They were more advanced than many of us imagine they were thanks to the way they are portrayed in the media. They had brains similar in size to ours, they stood fully upright (not hunched over), and had a surprisingly complex culture. When asked what it means to be human, you can compare many different aspects of our lives, such as biology, culture, and even religious beliefs. We obviously have

In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle view of the 4 kinds of people are accurate. These 4 kinds of people are the virtuous, strong-willed, vicious, and weak-willed. First, I will set out Aristotle’s argument about a strong-willed person who struggles to overcome desires, and does it make them morally wrong. Next, I will show the 4 kinds of persons that Aristotle believes exist, they are the virtuous, strong-willed, weak-willed, and the vicious persons and his arguments concerning them. Finally, I will set out my own position to support Aristotle’s view.

I feel that each response has hit on key factors of what society, religion, and science classify as "human". For example, DNA ties us all together, and is something that we all have in common (whether we like it or not). As a species, humans all look relatively similar, yet none of us look or act exactly the same. Our brains are incredible! We can process abstract thoughts, solve

“We were all humans until race disconnected us, religion separated us, politics divided us and wealth classified us.”(Minds). The word human is defined as “of, relating to, or characteristic of humans”(Webster Human). This definition gives us a perfect example of why the meaning of this term is so ambiguous. Debates over what truly defines a human have been going on for decades. The disputes over this have ranged from Frankenstein’s monster to Data the android from Star Trek. The question still remains, what truly defines a human? More importantly, can this be defined for us by society?

Hello, my name is Maria Doe and I will be talking about a frequently asked question, as there isn’t a specific answer to it. What does it mean to be human? It seems like a really easy question, but its not. The definition I found for human is “A man, woman, or child of the species Homo-sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance” but our meanings don’t have to sound so confusing, since

The meaning of the word human being is an individual of the

Odysseus and Penelope are the best two example of what it really means to be human because of their great courage to overcome all obstacles for a greater cause. There is not one true definition on what it means to be human, but the most knowledgeable definition of “human” is to be created in the image of God. The attributes that really set humans apart from all the other animals on earth are imagination, reason, and will. These three human faculties make us who we are because we have the ability to counter plate our own mortality. Dr. Davis stated, “You cannot love another person without imagination” You have to first realize what their desires are and what they want in life. The most critical aspect of

This question defines the nature of Aristotle’s inquiries, at least for a large part of the Metaphysics, and it thus offers a fourth account of the study or science of metaphysics.“The science of first principles, the study of being qua being, theology, the investigation into substance – four compatible descriptions of the same discipline? Perhaps there is no one discipline which can be identified as Aristotelian Metaphysics? And perhaps this thought should not disturb us: we need only recall that the metaphysics was composed by Andronicus rather than by Aristotle. But the four descriptions do have at least one thing in common: they are dark and obscure” (Ross, 1996, p174).

To be human is to be able think and learn without any restraints. To have an opinion all to one's self even if it my clash with someone else's. To be human is to have emotion. One must be able to smile, cry, laugh or shout without living in fear of the consequence. One must

One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.

Aristotle has formulated an economical and clear argument, but the passage that contains it fails to connect all the premises to other parts of the text to lend them supporting arguments. Aristotle extended his approach of starting from what is commonly believed to even this human function argument which is crucial to the whole work. As a result, many readers may be left unconvinced.

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 well as being a devoted biologist, botanist, moral philosopher, psychologist, zoologist and many more things besides Aristotle held a view about human nature that he interwove into his concept of virtue theory, this is described at some length in the text Nicomachean Ethics. It is this view on human nature that I intend to explain and discuss throughout this essay with reference to some more recent philosophers to show that Aristotle’s view was not only linked directly to Athenian society but has managed to stand the test of time. A point I will return to later in a yet to posted article ‘Can we Consider Modern Ethics to be Aristotelian or Nietzschean?’, this article is much better written and argues the points in greater detail. I must admit this was in fact a very early work of mine and although some editing has been made it still lacks the strength some of my later pieces possess.