Can you prove the reality Formal and Final Causes

[Birdchest]

Hi, I understand from a little reading I’ve been doing that modern scientists assume only two of Aristotles’ four causes; that is, the two having to do with the empirical world, efficient causes and empirical causes. They reject formal and final causality. Is there a proof for formal and final causality? I realize I am asking a somewhat technical question, but perhaps there is a scholar out there who can answer it. Thank you.
Jose

 

[Areopagite]

Hi, I understand from a little reading I’ve been doing that modern scientists assume only two of Aristotles’ four causes; that is, the two having to do with the empirical world, efficient causes and empirical causes. They reject formal and final causality. Is there a proof for formal and final causality? I realize I am asking a somewhat technical question, but perhaps there is a scholar out there who can answer it. Thank you.
Jose

Yeah, this is a good question. I think I might have the answer.

Well, I think one thing that seems a major weakness in not assuming formal cause is that no object would have any meaning … not even atoms … which is a problem for science, I think.

You can ask someone what the difference is between a chair and an apple, and one might reply that they are made up of different stuff (i.e. different matter … their empirical cause … a.k.a. material cause). However, when you get down to it, they are both made up of atoms. So, in terms of matter, in some sense, they are indistinguishable. There is no reason to call one an apple and one a chair since they are both made up of protons, electrons, etc. You could say it’s the specific arrangement of the atoms and whatnot that makes them different, but when you start talking about arrangement and shape, etc., then you are talking about form. The form of an apple is something that is responsible for the apple of being what it is … not just its matter. Thus, if the scientist wishes to distinguish a tree from an animal, which I think all biologists would do, then they would have to accept the idea of formal cause. Even with protons and neutrons … they are both made up of quarks (…right?), but quantum physicists nonetheless distinguish them on the basis of their form/arrangement/structure.

If you accept formal cause then final cause would quite naturally follow … for the final cause is what the object does when its formal and material causes are all in order. What does it de on account of its form and matter? An animal grows, eats, and reproduces based on how its matter is organized by its form and not only by virtue of it being made up of atoms (b/c plenty of things are made up of atoms but do not grow, eat, and reproduce). Does this make sense?

If they accept efficient cause, I find they would ultimately be hard-pressed to not accept formal cause … because efficient causes simply organize matter into some form. If that is true, efficient cause presupposes formal cause, otherwise efficient causes could not give matter and form … since form would not exist. They might have some other definition of efficient cause that does not involve form, but I can’t see what it would be. Does this make sense?

Anyway, I’m throwing that out there and won’t ramble on just in case you understand it already. But, I am open to correction too. I’d be curious to hear what you have to say.

 

[geometer]

I studied physics for a while. As far as I know physics is all about physical processes. It make descriptions of those. It seems that Aristotle was using causes in the sense of ontological causes. Ontology is not explored in physics as far as I know.

Physics follows the energy of systems, and is concerned with the energetic causes of events.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi, I understand from a little reading I’ve been doing that modern scientists assume only two of Aristotles’ four causes; that is, the two having to do with the empirical world, efficient causes and empirical causes. They reject formal and final causality. Is there a proof for formal and final causality? I realize I am asking a somewhat technical question, but perhaps there is a scholar out there who can answer it. Thank you.
Jose

Welcome to CAF Birdchest:

I’ll give it a go, with your permission. But, beware, just about as soon as the rhetoric begins, you’ll be swamped with naysayers, those opposed to God and His existence. A few are here for erudition. Most of the rest are here to annoy. So, if you can get past the curmudgeons, let’s get started.

There are four causes of being. But, before we can know them, we must know on what they depend for their existence.

To begin, it is important to understand what a cause is, in the manner meant by a general science of nature and Aristotle and Aquinas. A cause is that on which a thing (the effect) depends in being or becoming. As such, a cause is a principle but not a first principle. A principle is that from which anything flows in any manner whatsoever. While causes can be principles, principles are not necessarily causes.

A cause is that upon which the effect depends either for its being or for its coming to be. A principle is different from a cause in two ways: first, because it is the ultimate source for everything in the order under consideration. And, second, because it is itself underived or presuppositionless.

From an analysis of nature and science we see that things are caused. From an analysis of the action of causation, we discover that there are three principles that are the ground of being in the order of causation. These three principles are primary matter, (first) privation and (first) possession. These are the contraries that stand out when we investigate change and motion. I have indicated that each of these three principles are firsts in their orders of being and are presupposed by nothing.

For the sake of simplicity, an example could be taken from ordinary coming-to-be, although this description does not describe first principles per se. The physical manifestation of primary matter would be the human male and female gametes. At the first moment of change (into the zygote) the primary matter would perhaps be the combined “stuff” of the two gametes, including the separate DNA’s. Privation would be the absence of fusion of the DNA strands prior to fusion, or the privation of the instantiated human being. And, possession would be the fused DNA and the instantiated human life, in a single cell surrounded by the rest of the universe.

Now, that’s hardly a sufficient metaphysical account. But, it is an account that will work, in the absence of anything that will allow us to look metaphysically closer at the process. One day, we may look deep enough to understand how the foregoing mechanism actually becomes manifested as a living thing. But for now, at least we know something about the process.

The four causes of being are:

(1) From Primary or secondary matter, the material cause or causes - that matter having the privation of the final form.

(2) From the need for something external get the matter and form together, so to speak, the primary or secondary efficient causes.

(3) From the final form that the effect will own upon fusion of the matter with the appropriate form, the formal cause, or causes.

(4) From the purpose for which the fusion is being made to take place, the final cause, or causes.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Hi, I understand from a little reading I’ve been doing that modern scientists assume only two of Aristotles’ four causes; that is, the two having to do with the empirical world, efficient causes and empirical causes. They reject formal and final causality. Is there a proof for formal and final causality? I realize I am asking a somewhat technical question, but perhaps there is a scholar out there who can answer it. Thank you.
Jose

The modern sciences are not interested in questions such as “why?” They are only interested in the answers to such questions as, what, how, when, and where? The four causes of being are not designed to replace or displace anything that science says about life, biology, mathematics, or physics - despite the current debates.

The purpose of the four causes is to explain the facts of physical being and becoming from the deepest level. Science seeks to explain being and becoming from a less deep level, a level wherein men can work so that they might improve our lives, and amuse us. The sciences presuppose metaphysics. All work together to try to give us the best possible explanations and understandings of our universe and God.

Analogically, metaphysics lets us fully appreciate the wonder and pleasure we derive from driving a quarter of a million dollar car. Science understands enough about the car to build it. Metaphysics describes the why of why we derive the pleasure and wonder. Science knows that what it builds into the car should elicit such mysterious feelings.

jd

 

[geometer]

Analogically, metaphysics lets us fully appreciate the wonder and pleasure we derive from driving a quarter of a million dollar car. Science understands enough about the car to build it. Metaphysics describes the why of why we derive the pleasure and wonder. Science knows that what it builds into the car should elicit such mysterious feelings.

I have never enjoyed cars, boats, airplanes, jets, trains, etc… God offers better solutions to being sent from place to place.

Angels ascending a descending on the son of man has real meaning for me.

You suggest that metaphysics reveals the origin of pleasure, or some such thing, how so?

 

[JDaniel]

I have never enjoyed cars, boats, airplanes, jets, trains, etc… God offers better solutions to being sent from place to place.

Angels ascending a descending on the son of man has real meaning for me.

You suggest that metaphysics reveals the origin of pleasure, or some such thing, how so?

Geometer:

I realize the you are much more spiritual-directed than I am. I did not mean to imply that “metaphysics reveals the origins of pleasure.” It does not. I used the word, “analogical” to start the post for the exact purpose of keeping that surmise from happening. “Pleasure” is, at times, and especially under the circumstances described, a human “feeling” that cannot be explained by science. As something that cannot be explained by science yet it exists, I sent it to the metaphysical side.

Certain things that humans participate in, unexplainable by science, such as feeling pleasure, or pain, or happiness, or sadness, or love, etc., are things that allow us, as beings, to participate on and in a level of existence clearly higher than the purely physical level. In my opinion, they “show” us the realm of the spiritual. In my opinion, they allow us to step into the realm of the spiritual. To regard them merely as responses to stimuli is pathetic and insufficient, to me - and probably to you, too. We can get “pulled” by the other (metaphysical) side into it, however, usually the earthly side has so much pull that we cannot linger there for long. That is, in some ways, unfortunate.

God has left his footprints throughout history, not only in literature but also on our beings. I think that what we call the “emotions” should continuously remind us that we are in fact “stepping over”. That is why the misuse of pleasure or pain, etc., is to be avoided. I can’t think of any other reason why this should be so. God created pain and pleasure. It cannot be simply for procreative, or harm avoidance reasons. Not when some pleasures and pains are allowed without consequence.

Would you agree?

jd

 

[Birdchest]

Hi, I understand from a little reading I’ve been doing that modern scientists assume only two of Aristotles’ four causes; that is, the two having to do with the empirical world, efficient causes and empirical causes. They reject formal and final causality. Is there a proof for formal and final causality? I realize I am asking a somewhat technical question, but perhaps there is a scholar out there who can answer it. Thank you.
Jose

Argh! Of course I meant to title this "Can you prove the reality OF formal and final causes. I also should have written “efficient causes and MATERIAL causes”.
That out of the way, I’m grateful for the responses and will be reading them tonight. I was afraid no one would respond, but I see there are a few of us…thanks!
Jose

 

[Birdchest]

Thanks to Geometer, JDaniel and Aeropagite for your replies. I read (and re-read) your comments and believe I have begun to understand causality a little deeper. The comment by Aeropagite was quite down to earth and readily understandable and prepared me for the more formal explication by JD. Geometer’s comments were brief but also gave me some food for thought.

My next question would be then how can a materialist ever use the concept of causality since (from reading Aero and JD) the four causes seem to follow one another logically.

Thank you all again.
Jose

 

[MindOverMatter]

Yeah, this is a good question. I think I might have the answer.

Well, I think one thing that seems a major weakness in not assuming formal cause is that no object would have any meaning … not even atoms … which is a problem for science, I think.

You can ask someone what the difference is between a chair and an apple, and one might reply that they are made up of different stuff (i.e. different matter … their empirical cause … a.k.a. material cause). However, when you get down to it, they are both made up of atoms. So, in terms of matter, in some sense, they are indistinguishable. There is no reason to call one an apple and one a chair since they are both made up of protons, electrons, etc. You could say it’s the specific arrangement of the atoms and whatnot that makes them different, but when you start talking about arrangement and shape, etc., then you are talking about form. The form of an apple is something that is responsible for the apple of being what it is … not just its matter. Thus, if the scientist wishes to distinguish a tree from an animal, which I think all biologists would do, then they would have to accept the idea of formal cause. Even with protons and neutrons … they are both made up of quarks (…right?), but quantum physicists nonetheless distinguish them on the basis of their form/arrangement/structure.

If you accept formal cause then final cause would quite naturally follow … for the final cause is what the object does when its formal and material causes are all in order. What does it de on account of its form and matter? An animal grows, eats, and reproduces based on how its matter is organized by its form and not only by virtue of it being made up of atoms (b/c plenty of things are made up of atoms but do not grow, eat, and reproduce). Does this make sense?

If they accept efficient cause, I find they would ultimately be hard-pressed to not accept formal cause … because efficient causes simply organize matter into some form. If that is true, efficient cause presupposes formal cause, otherwise efficient causes could not give matter and form … since form would not exist. They might have some other definition of efficient cause that does not involve form, but I can’t see what it would be. Does this make sense?

Anyway, I’m throwing that out there and won’t ramble on just in case you understand it already. But, I am open to correction too. I’d be curious to hear what you have to say.

Areopagite. This was a wonderful presentation. I can see a proof for God brewing in the midsts of that.

 

[Areopagite]

Thank you very much MindOverMatter and Birdchest for your kind words. It always makes my day when someone gets what I’m saying.

My next question would be then how can a materialist ever use the concept of causality since (from reading Aero and JD) the four causes seem to follow one another logically.

This is a very good question. One of which I have not thought through sufficiently. I can only say that they do legitimately accept material causality. Likewise, they accept efficient causality, but in doing so, as I argued above, they must accept formal causality, and, in practice, do accept it, implicitly and unknowingly and unintentionally. In these ways then, they accept causality.

Final causality might be the easiest one to do away with in their minds, even though “easiest” doesn’t mean it’s possible. But I’m trying to imagine some kind of argument that might look like it’s doing away with it … but I’m failing … miserably.

In the end, materialists do accept all four causes, but they don’t know it. Interestingly, too, correct me if I’m wrong, “materialism” is going out of style, being replaced with “physicalism” or “naturalism” instead. This is because they realize that things like physical forces aren’t made of matter … and yet they exist. Forces are immaterial. So, in an effort to maintain a rejection of the supernatural, they have slightly altered the name of their religion. That’s what I’ve been hearing at least. Nonetheless, physicalism, since it admits the existence of things that aren’t material, seems to admit the existence of form now. But I’m actually not well-read in this matter. I might require correction on this. That’s what I happened to hear though.