What is a proper cause?

[Skeptic92]

i can no other gift make but thanks and thanks. this is gold. how can i learn it at the source?

If you are already fairly familiar with Scholastic Philosophy, or at least competent in reading advanced Philosophical texts. Edward Feser goes through all this (and more) in depth here; amazon.com/Scholastic-Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Scholasticae/dp/3868385444/

You can also read Aristotles Physics & Metaphysics and Aquinas’ Commentaries on the same texts; dhspriory.org/thomas/ here. I’m unsure if they are there in full though, if not they can be purchased off amazon.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aristotle tells us, Physics that Nature is the principle of motion and rest in those things which have a nature of their own. If you follow his explanation, the normal operations of any being would be natural. They would not be effecient causes. The effecient cause would be the generator of the nature ( more properly the generator of the form ), another similar being or God. Thomas Aquinas was adamant that the substantial form was not an efficient cause. But man would be an exception because he does some things naturally and other things by the application of his intellect ( my interpretation of the soul’s operations ). See Aquinas’ Commentary on A’s Physics and Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John A. Weisheipl.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here is a really good discussion on causes and the historical development of the concept of cause. It is long but worth while.

newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm

Linus2nd

 

[atassina]

Thank to all for helping me diminish my ignorance. I realize with all the confusion in society how important philosophy is now. people are rejecting basic human understanding. i actually heard someone passionately describe why the fireplace in front of us was not real. he had read a biography about Einstein.

let’s take a poll. if the pain and anguish you feel is not real, raise your hand. i don’t see any hands. well. i guess it must be real.