Final Causality

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/metaphysics1.jpg?w=450&h=281
Twilight Zone, 1962, Took Metaphysics Seriously

There is in fact a strong case to be made that final causality is unavoidable if we are to make sense, not only of human thought and action, but also of what we know about the natural world in general from modern physical science itself.

It is something that modern science threw away at its inception and one that continues to plague its narrative as it advances. On the one hand we seem to say that final causality and teleology have been refuted and on the other we note that it permeates both modern science and philosophy. Among the central themes of Feser’s The Last Superstition is that final causality – teleology, purpose, or goal-directedness – is as objective a feature of the natural world as mass or electric charge, and that the arguments to the contrary given by various early modern philosophers are worthless.

Biophysicist and Nobel laureate Max Delbrück, once wrote that if the Nobel Prize could be awarded posthumously, “I think they should consider Aristotle for the discovery of the principle implied in DNA,” and that “the reason for the lack of appreciation, among scientists, of Aristotle’s scheme lies in our having been blinded for 300 years by the Newtonian view of the world.”

Read more from Edward Feser’s Aquinas:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2011/01/17/final-causality-i-by-edward-feser/

dj

 

[larkin31]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/metaphysics1.jpg?w=450&h=281
Twilight Zone, 1962, Took Metaphysics Seriously

There is in fact a strong case to be made that final causality is unavoidable if we are to make sense, not only of human thought and action, but also of what we know about the natural world in general from modern physical science itself.

It is something that modern science threw away at its inception and one that continues to plague its narrative as it advances. On the one hand we seem to say that final causality and teleology have been refuted and on the other we note that it permeates both modern science and philosophy. Among the central themes of Feser’s The Last Superstition is that final causality – teleology, purpose, or goal-directedness – is as objective a feature of the natural world as mass or electric charge, and that the arguments to the contrary given by various early modern philosophers are worthless.

Biophysicist and Nobel laureate Max Delbrück, once wrote that if the Nobel Prize could be awarded posthumously, “I think they should consider Aristotle for the discovery of the principle implied in DNA,” and that “the reason for the lack of appreciation, among scientists, of Aristotle’s scheme lies in our having been blinded for 300 years by the Newtonian view of the world.”

Read more from Edward Feser’s Aquinas:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2011/01/17/final-causality-i-by-edward-feser/

dj

What’s your opinion on this, dj? This is all pasted from the weblink you provide.

 

[djeter]

The weblink is my blog and I agree with Feser’s opinion which is why I posted it, presented it and wish to promote it.

dj

 

[larkin31]

The weblink is my blog and I agree with Feser’s opinion which is why I posted it, presented it and wish to promote it.

dj

You might make clearer which is the author’s claims and evidence and which is yours. I have interest in first cause (Is that what you mean by “final” cause?–“Final” in what sense?) discussions, but this post isn’t clear enough for me to continue.

And I typically don’t engage with blogs. But maybe someone else would like to…

 

[djeter]

You might make clearer which is the author’s claims and evidence and which is yours. I have interest in first cause (Is that what you mean by “final” cause?–“Final” in what sense?) discussions, but this post isn’t clear enough for me to continue.

And I typically don’t engage with blogs. But maybe someone else would like to…

Well blogs are not forums for one thing, they are meant to be read and perhaps commented on. You’re right that first cause and final causality are very different. Feser comments on Aquinas First Cause Proof here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/11/24/the-first-cause-by-edward-feser/

Hope that is “clear” enough for you and happy to continue a discussion with you here, if you can lose some of your snarkiness between now and then.

dj

 

[larkin31]

Well blogs are not forums for one thing, they are meant to be read and perhaps commented on. You’re right that first cause and final causality are very different. Feser comments on Aquinas First Cause Proof here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/11/24/the-first-cause-by-edward-feser/

Hope that is “clear” enough for you and happy to continue a discussion with you here, if you can lose some of your snarkiness between now and then.

dj

no snarkiness intended

I am sorry

carry on without me

 

[djeter]

Thanks. My overreaction perhaps. We haven’t had a happy history before.

dj

 

[Spirithound]

I have interest in first cause (Is that what you mean by “final” cause?–“Final” in what sense?) discussions, but this post isn’t clear enough for me to continue.

Final cause is one of the four causes of things that St. Thomas Aquinas put forth. Final cause is the purpose of the thing, for example, the final cause of a chair is to be sat on.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Actually it was Aristotle who came up with the four types of causes, including Final Cause, or what we now call “teleology”

 

[djeter]

“If you don’t understand Aristotle’s four causes, then I dare say you don’t understand anything at all. But then, we all do understand Aristotle’s four causes, at least intuitively. What is needed is rather an explicit systematic account of what we all know intuitively, and the avoidance of certain deep and widespread modern philosophical errors. Aristotle gives us both. In the hands of medieval Christians, Jews, and Muslims, the work of Plato and Aristotle was used to demolish the intellectual foundations of the pagan culture that produced them. If resurrected today, it would do the same to the simultaneously newer and shabbier paganism that has supplanted the religious heritage of the West."

Dr. Feser explains the four causes here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/12/16/aristotles-four-causes-by-dr-edward-feser/

dj

 

[tonyrey]

The rejection of final causes is self-contradictory because rational thought has no foundation in a purposeless scheme of things. Reasoning itself has no goal if it is due to efficient causes!

 

[In_Spiration]

You’re right that first cause and final causality are very different.

Technically this is misleading, because the extent that anything can be described as a final cause is exactly the same as that by which it may be called a first cause. And that’s due to the fact that one’s end purpose must always first exist in the mind (as an intention), before any of the other causes (formal, efficient, material) come into play as such.

The absolute First Cause, of man and of everything else, is God, Whom is also his and their ultimate Final Cause, the beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega. Even that which God does not cause, namely sin, which is accidentally creature-made, is terminated (terminus, end) or finished (finis, limit) in Him as its final end – He splendidly manages to twist it into the service of His Plan, allowing even greater good!

 

[djeter]

Technically this is misleading, because the extent that anything can be described as a final cause is exactly the same as that by which it may be called a first cause. And that’s due to the fact that one’s end purpose must always first exist in the mind (as an intention), before any of the other causes (formal, efficient, material) come into play as such.

The absolute First Cause, of man and of everything else, is God, Whom is also his and their ultimate Final Cause, the beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega. Even that which God does not cause, namely sin, which is accidentally creature-made, is terminated (terminus, end) or finished (finis, limit) in Him as its final end – He splendidly manages to twist it into the service of His Plan, allowing even greater good!

The way I have been using these terms is as follows:

Aristotle’s four causes. The first is what is traditionally called **the material cause **or underlying stuff that a thing is made out of, in this case rubber. Then we have the formal cause, which is the form, structure, or pattern that the matter exhibits, which in this case comprises such features as sphericity, solidity, and bounciness. As you can see, the material and formal causes of a thing are just its matter and form, considered as components of a complete explanation of it.

Next we have the efficient cause, which is what brings a thing into being, or, more generally and technically, which actualizes a potentiality in a thing; in this case, that would be the actions of the workers and/or machines in the factory in which the ball was made, as they molded the rubber into a ball.

Finally we have the final cause, which is the end, goal, or purpose of a thing, in this case providing amusement to a child. In combination, these causes provide a complete explanation of a thing. That doesn’t mean that in asking about the ball, for example, you would not have further questions. You might ask “Where does rubber come from?” or “How do they mold it so perfectly?” or “Who made the factory and why?” But the answers will always be just further examples of material, formal, efficient, and final causes.

Nothing can cause itself; whatever comes into existence, or more generally whatever must have existence added to its essence in order for it to be real, must be caused by another. This is the “principle of causality” (also sometimes known as a version of the “principle of sufficient reason”).Notice that it does not say that “Everything has a cause”– something which Aquinas never asserted or would have asserted. The principle says only that what does not have existence on its own must have a cause.** Primum movens **(Latin), usually referred to as **the First Cause **in English, is a term used in the philosophical and theological cosmological argument for the existence of God, and in thinking about cosmogony, the source of the cosmos or “all-being”, and spontaneous generation of life.

Thanks

dj

 

[djeter]

My finishing post on the topic of final causality as presented by Dr. Edward Feser here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2011/01/18/final-causality-ii-by-edward-feser/

In it Dr. Feser cites the reasons modern science should undertake a serious reconsideration of Aristotelian metaphysics. Consider first the findings of modern biology. Darwinian evolutionary theory was, officially at least, supposed at long last to exorcise final causality from that part of the natural world where its existence seems most obvious. And yet, as the Thomist philosopher Etienne Gilson documented at length in his From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again, teleological concepts have permeated Darwinian theory from the beginning.

The inability of modern science or modern philosophy to exorcise its rejection of final causality and reconsider Aristotlean-Thomist metaphysics is worthy of your consideration.

dj

 

[Betterave]

Very interesting stuff. I think this is a very interesting passage.

“Nor is it correct to say that the student of the rock or water cycles just happens to be interested in the way some rock generates other kinds and how water in one form brings about water in another form, and is not interested in bird migration patterns or arthritis, so that he pays attention to some elements in the overall causal situation rather than others. For the patterns described by scientists studying these cycles are objective patterns in nature, not mere projections of human interests. But the only way to account for this is to recognize that each stage in the process, while it might have various sorts of effects, has only the generation of certain specific effects among them as its “end” or “goal” and that this is what determines its role in the cycle. In short, it is to recognize such cycles as teleological.”

A cycle indicates finality, teleology, an account in terms of an end/purpose.

So what is the end, purpose, goal of such cycles for Aristotle? …for modern scientists? (Or is that a badly posed question??)

 

[JDaniel]

“If you don’t understand Aristotle’s four causes, then I dare say you don’t understand anything at all. But then, we all do understand Aristotle’s four causes, at least intuitively. What is needed is rather an explicit systematic account of what we all know intuitively, and the avoidance of certain deep and widespread modern philosophical errors. Aristotle gives us both. In the hands of medieval Christians, Jews, and Muslims, the work of Plato and Aristotle was used to demolish the intellectual foundations of the pagan culture that produced them. If resurrected today, it would do the same to the simultaneously newer and shabbier paganism that has supplanted the religious heritage of the West."

Dr. Feser explains the four causes here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/12/16/aristotles-four-causes-by-dr-edward-feser/

dj

Did we lose a cause someplace along the way? Originally, weren’t there five causes, from St. Thomas? What happened to “chance”?

God bless,
jd

 

[davidv]

Did we lose a cause someplace along the way? Originally, weren’t there five Ways, or causes, from St. Thomas?

God bless,
jd

No. In this context Way =/= Cause. Different things entirely.

 

[JDaniel]

No. In this context Way =/= Cause. Different things entirely.

My apologies, David. I got sidetracked there, and didn’t finish my thought. I have since come back and finished it - in time! I was originally thinking about “chance”. While it is true that chance is not a major cause, as are the other four, it is still regarded as a “cause”, by Aristotle.

“By the proper use of division, a definition of chance can be established.” - Physics, Bk. II, ch. 5, 196b, 10 ff.

The importance of “chance” as a cause, is that it is not the same as “randomness”.

God bless,
jd

 

[djeter]

Very interesting stuff. I think this is a very interesting passage.

“Nor is it correct to say that the student of the rock or water cycles just happens to be interested in the way some rock generates other kinds and how water in one form brings about water in another form, and is not interested in bird migration patterns or arthritis, so that he pays attention to some elements in the overall causal situation rather than others. For the patterns described by scientists studying these cycles are objective patterns in nature, not mere projections of human interests. But the only way to account for this is to recognize that each stage in the process, while it might have various sorts of effects, has only the generation of certain specific effects among them as its “end” or “goal” and that this is what determines its role in the cycle. In short, it is to recognize such cycles as teleological.”

A cycle indicates finality, teleology, an account in terms of an end/purpose.

So what is the end, purpose, goal of such cycles for Aristotle? …for modern scientists? (Or is that a badly posed question??)

It might be badly posed but, not being a philosopher, I know just what you’re asking. And that was a great choice on your part, BTW. I don’t know if Aristotle ever commented on water or rock cycles but Dr. Feser is quoting from an article that Dr. David S. Oderberg authored. Part I is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2011/01/07/reading-selections-from-teleology-inorganic-and-organic-david-s-oderberg-part-i/

and part II follows (next post). Dr. Oderberg deals with organic and inorganic teleology. I always wondered what this Chrismas Carol meant:

Joy to the World, the Savior reigns!
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat, the sounding joy.

Some kind of inorganic teleology going on there?

Read the post and find out…

dj

 

[Spirithound]

A cycle indicates finality, teleology, an account in terms of an end/purpose.

So what is the end, purpose, goal of such cycles for Aristotle? …for modern scientists? (Or is that a badly posed question??)

I’m not sure whether a cycle really indicates finality any better than a linear model.

The final cause of the water cycle is logically all the final causes of water at the various stages in the cycle, or perhaps more immediately, the final cause of the cycle is to get the water to that point in the cycle.

The final cause of the rock cycle would similarly be to produce rock in all its forms. I think this one seems less obvious because the final cause of rock is in turn less obvious.