Is the Aristotelian theory of casuality comparable to some aspect of Taoism?

[sidetrack]

After reading a bit about actuality and potentiality I read some stuff saying that Aristole said when apply his theory of causality to a rock falling that

Material 1 the rock itself
Formal 2 the lie of the land
Efficient 3 the push
Final 4 the rock’s *“desire”*to seek the lowest level

It said that in modern causality only efficient cause would be considered.The idea that final causes exist brings in the notion of a goal which leads to teleology.

However regardless of how extremely inaccurate Aristotle’s stuff on a physical science like physics is now,the general philosophizing of motion (in Western philosophy interestingly) brings to my mind how motion is philosophized on in *Eastern *philosophy.

Particulary this brought to my mind some stuff I know from Taoism about the way and the flow of things which I think is brought up in the aspect of the priniciples of T’ai-chi.Can anyone tell me about how motion and flow is thought of in Taoism and how it compares to the Aristotelian stuff?.

Asides:speaking of ancient philosophy and it’s early attempts at sciences does anyone find it odd that ancient Greco-Roman stuff on biology and medicine like with Hippocrates mostly speculations on the body and what Aristole and Pliny the Elder thought of animals a is super inaccurate by todays standards but stuff like the Indian * Ayurveda* medicine system and acupuncture two kinds of traditional medicine both with roots in ancient philosophy are still valid and running well today? :ehh:

 

[thewanderer]

Well… I don’t really know anything about Taoism… but I would categorize Aristotle’s four causes slightly differently than you have here.

Well, I’m gonig to try using a different example because falling rocks tends to get complicated pretty quickly because of Aristotle’s faulty understanding of the four elements.

So letss take the example of the formation of clay into a bowl

Material - unshaped clay
Formal - the shape or “what it is to be” of the bowl
Efficient - the shaping action of the potter/the potter himself who shapes (I’m still a little unclear as to which of these is more accurate)
Final - the “what it is to be” of the bowl as known and planned in the potters mind

Is that clear enough? If you want me to try and explain anything better just let me know, Aristotle can be pretty confusing.

 

[Shike]

It said that in modern causality only efficient cause would be considered.The idea that final causes exist brings in the notion of a goal which leads to teleology.

I could not comment on Taoism either.

It could be said that in Modern Philosophy all other causes tended to be ignored and something kind of like efficient causality was focused on. However, by discarding final causality (teleology) one also necessarily warps the notion of efficient causality making it ultimately unintelligible.

As for Contemporary Philosophy? It seems like we are still in the era of Post-modernism and still dealing with (many kinds of) relativism.

As for what contemporary biologists or physicists generally mean when they use the word causality, I couldn’t really say. To complicate matters further, what they say may or may not be what they should say as it is not uncommon to have one go off into matters of philosophy, even unbeknownst to themselves.

Aristotelian analysis of causality is a philosophy of nature and metaphysical project that still stands the test of time, and necessarily so.

 

[thewanderer]

I’d also just like to point out that Aristotle’s understanding of material and formal causes comes from his understanding of matter and form. It would really be intriging if taoist philosophy had the same distinction.