Final Causality

[Betterave]

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.

For Aristotle, see De caelo, for instance, only circular motion expresses perfection. Linear motion is inherently imperfect, since it implies either unnatural movement by an external constraint or a failure for a thing to have arrived at it’s natural resting place. That is why the heavens were regarded as ‘divine,’ as ruled, or animated, by intelligences, or angels, who are, in their essences, closer to God than linear-history-bound humans: their movement was regarded as natural and perfect and eternal. The point of noting the cyclical nature of the water cycle is to grasp it as a unity; none of its constitutive parts (or “various stages”) could possibly constitute its final end in itself, so far as I can see. This is also the reason why the form or species was regarded as the telos of nature, rather than the individual - the individual was regarded merely as a stage in the biological cycle, and important in terms of this role in the ‘eternal’ existence of the species, rather than in terms of its individuality.

Anyway, maybe you have some further explanation of what you mean?

 

[Spirithound]

For Aristotle, see De caelo, for instance, only circular motion expresses perfection. Linear motion is inherently imperfect, since it implies either unnatural movement by an external constraint or a failure for a thing to have arrived at it’s natural resting place. That is why the heavens were regarded as ‘divine,’ as ruled, or animated, by intelligences, or angels, who are, in their essences, closer to God than linear-history-bound humans: their movement was regarded as natural and perfect and eternal. The point of noting the cyclical nature of the water cycle is to grasp it as a unity; none of its constitutive parts (or “various stages”) could possibly constitute its final end in itself, so far as I can see. This is also the reason why the form or species was regarded as the telos of nature, rather than the individual - the individual was regarded merely as a stage in the biological cycle, and important in terms of this role in the ‘eternal’ existence of the species, rather than in terms of its individuality.

Good explanation, thank you.

What I was thinking is that the “thing” that is accomplished by the water cycle is that water is present in all the different stages in our world. As rain, it waters the land and replenishes the rivers. As rivers, it gives humans and animals drinking water, gives fishes and others a habitat, and replenishes the ocean and the atmosphere. As oceans, it gives habitat to fishes and other sea animals, and evaporates into the atmosphere. In the atmosphere, it makes it more pleasant for us, and it forms clouds to repeat the cycle. Finally, as a natural substance, water gives glory to God.

All of these things are final causes of water, the last one being the ultimate final cause. It seems to me that everything that helped the water get to each stage has a final cause of helping water get to that stage, thus the “water cycle” has the final cause of producing various forms of water.

 

[Betterave]

Good explanation, thank you.

What I was thinking is that the “thing” that is accomplished by the water cycle is that water is present in all the different stages in our world. As rain, it waters the land and replenishes the rivers. As rivers, it gives humans and animals drinking water, gives fishes and others a habitat, and replenishes the ocean and the atmosphere. As oceans, it gives habitat to fishes and other sea animals, and evaporates into the atmosphere. In the atmosphere, it makes it more pleasant for us, and it forms clouds to repeat the cycle. Finally, as a natural substance, water gives glory to God.

All of these things are final causes of water, the last one being the ultimate final cause. It seems to me that everything that helped the water get to each stage has a final cause of helping water get to that stage, thus the “water cycle” has the final cause of producing various forms of water.

I guess all that may be, but the question is whether and how it can be connected to the OP’s original thesis:

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.

 

[In_Spiration]

Derek Jeter,

This is all I was adding to your characterization of the causes – from Summa Theologiae Part 2, Question 1, Article 2:

I answer that, Every agent, of necessity, acts for an end. For if, in a number of causes ordained to one another, the first be removed, the others must, of necessity, be removed also. Now the first of all causes is the final cause.

You’re basically right about all you’re saying. I was just adding that, ultimately, the first cause and the final cause are not substantially different at all. (I was only responding to your remark that “first cause and final causality are very different.” You may have only been referring to their semantic usage, not their ontological identity, but I just figured I’d clarify.)