The theory advanced by the philosopher Aristotle regarding causality is one of his best known and most influential. Indeed, his ideas have dominated perception on this topic in much of Western philosophy since his work appeared some 2,300 years ago. His theory centers on the idea of ​​what causes things to be and how many different types of causes there are; for Aristotle it was necessary to attempt to investigate the phenomena we experience in our world. His theory is also known as “the doctrine of the four causes”. These four causes are usually labeled “material,” “efficient,” “formal,” and “final.” I will thoroughly examine these four causes separately and also critically examine the specific strengths of Aristotle's theory and the broader issues surrounding it. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Aristotle's theory of "material cause" is accepted as one of the main explanations of causality. If we accept that everything in our world is material, then we need to look at what these materialities are made of. For example, a knife is made of steel or a cardboard box. He also attempts to use the material cause as an example of the properties of the object; knives are strong because they are made of steel etc. Aristotle believed that material cause had two elements, prime matter and proximate matter. Proximate matter is matter made up of things with properties. For example, Aristotle would say that if a computer is made up of cells and electricity, then those cells and electricity have proximate matter. Raw material, on the other hand, is described as a necessity, but Aristotle is not sure that it exists. After all, he believed (like many Greeks of this time) that the elements constituted everything we can recognize empirically. Prime matter is the matter of the elements, which Aristotle describes as “pure potentiality”. This raw material is capable of existing in any form and exists externally and in everything. Plato had advanced a similar idea, as described in his “Timaeus”; there must be another external “thing” that does not fit into Plato's belief about the forms, much less his idea about what drives them. Plato therefore argues that there must be “a receptacle of all that is to come.” However, he refers to this element of the universe as “space” rather than “matter.” Aristotle's and Plato's theories of “prime matter” have been criticized by Daniel W. Graham, who argues that such thinking involves a paradox. William Charlton also opposes the concept of raw material, basing his criticism on questions of ambiguous classification. As he writes, “does the difference of saying nothing remain, or does the difference of saying raw material remain, purely a question of words?” Both modern scholars argue that there may be nothing left, but that raw material is not necessarily produced as a result. Ultimately, they argue that there is no way to know whether the property cited by Aristotle exists or does not exist; therefore, all this is a "non-argument". However, Charlton points out that there are problematic issues behind the "metaphysicality" of Aristotle's thoughts. Aristotle's next theory of causality is the idea of ​​"efficiency". An efficient cause is the concept of “what causes it to be”. For example, if we looked at a knife, the knife was made by us humans because we needed to cut things. This factor would actually be the efficient cause of a knife. This cause can also be linked to internal movement or motivation. The internal movement of living beings would be thegrowth or “the soul”. Adapting Greek philosophy to Christian thought, Saint Aquinas used Aristotle's theory of efficiency in 3 of his 5 proofs of the existence of God. Aquinas explains that we can see that everything we observe is the product of an efficient system cause ; therefore there must have been a starting point, to avoid infinite regression. It therefore assumes that this “causeless causer” is God. However one criticism of this construct is that if we can foresee an infinite future, then it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that an infinite past also exists. There is also the question of whether God is potentially an infinite regress, since according to the logic of causality there will always have to be something that caused what is not caused. If we are to accept that there is a causeless cause, then why should we assume that this cause is God, or has the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God? Aristotle's third theory of causality is the “formal” theory. Here he argues that not only is everything made of matter, but everything also has a form. The shape of a perceivable object is what defines it and separates it from something of the same matter. For example, a table and a pencil may both be made of wood, but their “shapes” make them very different objects. The material cause is described as “potentiality”, while the formal cause is “reality”. The idea of ​​form also applies to living things. Aristotle described the theory of forms as a “difficult and controversial” subject. The idea is closely associated with Plato's “world of forms”, but is perhaps a slightly more refined version, as Aristotle took into account thinkers before him, but manages to show how his ideas are different regarding the four causes. Aristotle's theory is also visible in the material world, as opposed to Plato's theory, which is based on the presence of an undetectable world. However, the idea of ​​form has been criticized because it does not take into account the constant flow of objects and the material world. We could not take into account all the possibilities of the shapes of an object. While something might be in the shape of a table, it could also be used as a chair or a murder weapon. A counterargument to this objection is the idea of ​​a blunt knife. Even if the efficient cause has been compromised, this does not affect the formal cause; it's not that the knife is no longer a knife, but that it's just a "bad knife". This criticism, however, could come under ethical fire, if we take into account Aristotle's conviction regarding our telos, which is that of reason. a human being is unable to reason due to mental disabilities, or different beliefs regarding our telos, does this make that human being a bad human being? The fourth and final cause is the “final” cause. Final cause is explained by Aristotle as the end of what things are in motion. This is also described as the ultimate goal or telos. The final cause is not external to the subject, but is an intrinsic part of his nature. For a knife, the final cause could be cutting a watermelon in half. Aristotle believed that the final cause for humans, and what distinguishes us from other animals, is our ability to reason and seek happiness (which can only be achieved through our ability to reason). However, it is questionable whether Aristotle is right that humans are the only creatures with the ability to reason. For example, there is a famous photograph of a monkey using a stick to measure the depth of water in a stream to determine whether or not the stream can be crossed. Such examples make moot the question of whether Aristotle actually means "reason." Another criticism would be due to.