Aristotle Problems with the 4 causes Prime Mover

Aristotle Problems with the 4 causes & Prime Mover (part [b] help)

What does the specification say? Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of: • Aristotle’s understanding of material, efficient, formal and final cause • Aristotle’s concept of the Prime Mover Candidates should be able to discuss critically the validity of the above points.

Matter & The Universe A big problem with Aristotle’s thinking is that his view of the universe is outdated. He believed that the universe was eternal and that matter was also eternal. Aristotle’s understanding of the 4 causes + Prime Mover only works if there is pre-existing matter. The Prime Mover cannot interact to create something ‘out of nothing’ (creatio ex nihilo) as it is ‘pure actuality’ and only contemplates itself. Without pre-existing matter this cannot happen. Even Aristotle himself identifies this… ‘The series must start with something, since nothing can come from nothing…’ Aristotle’s Metaphysics Modern physics and cosmology seem to suggest that the universe has a definite beginning. This would indicate that the universe and matter are not eternal. Therefore Aristotle assumes that the universe and matter are eternal.

Problems with the Efficient & Final Cause Aristotle confesses that he has a problem with the efficient and final causes of the universe, because of this he needs to create the idea of the Prime Mover. One major problem in Aristotle’s thinking is that he believes that everything has a purpose. If we could prove that this was not the case then Aristotle’s theory of 4 causes and Prime Mover would be severely weakened.

Arguments for no purpose to existence Thinkers such as Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus have argued that life has no OBJECTIVE purpose. We’ll look at Nietzsche first… Nietzsche introduces the idea of nihilism to modern philosophy. Nihilism is a philosophical position which argues there is no OBJECTIVE meaning to anything in other words that all meaning must come from human beings.

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil = nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists generally assert that objective morality does not exist, and that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another. Nihilists that argue that there is no objective morality may claim that existence has no intrinsic higher meaning or goal. They may also claim that there is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator, or posit that even if a higher ruler or creator exists, humanity has no moral obligation to worship them.

‘Existence precedes essence’ What do you think this quote means?

Existentialist Philosophy on Life & Purpose Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus are both existentialist philosophers. A famous quote from Sartre demonstrates his understand of the human condition: ‘Existence precedes essence’ Both Sartre and Camus agree with Nietzsche that there is no objective purpose to the universe. As we have already seen Camus believed that we needed to find out our own purpose for ourselves. If these three thinkers are correct then we could argue that Aristotle’s theory of 4 causes must fail as there is no final cause. This could render the other causes pointless.

Argument from human nature on purpose Perhaps we cannot cope with the knowledge that there is ‘nothing out there’ and that all we have is this life, here and now. Maybe human beings have evolved to look for purpose in the world around us to help with our survival. This has led us to believe that there is one OBJECTIVE purpose to life and the universe. Is Aristotle falling foul of the same flawed reasoning in his search for his final cause?

Problems with the efficient cause Aristotle’s Prime Mover becomes the efficient cause of his universe. There a few problems with his thinking here. The relationship between Aristotle’s Prime Mover and the universe is unclear. Aristotle’s PM does not act in the world. It has no form. So how does a ‘spiritual’ being interact (albeit passively) with the physical realm? We still have the issue of matter coming from no where to deal with too. Aristotle’s Prime Mover could not have created out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo)!

Gerry Hughes’ analogy of the cat and the milk Hughes suggests that if a bowl of milk was placed in a room that a cat would cross over to it. The milk hasn’t acted it is passive. This supports Aristotle’s idea of the Prime Mover. The support that Fr Gerry Hughes SJ gives Aristotle is flawed. He is using an analogy of 2 physical objects to explain the relationship between the physical and spiritual. This cannot be seen to be useful in supporting Aristotle’s argument for the Prime Mover

Don’t forget that you will need to use evidence to support the statement as well as repute it…

Cause and Effect Aristotle’s argument is at heart an argument about cause and effect… This seems to be obvious! Things causes other things to happen. This is what the scientific method is based on. This is strong support of Aristotle’s argument. Aristotle can be described as an empiricist and so uses experience to formulate his ideas on the 4 causes. This seems like a logical step!

David Hume on Cause & Effect Hume has famously argued that the ‘interaction’ that we see between one object and another does not mean that we can say that object has caused another object to move. This is known as the ‘fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. ’ He argues that we are viewing events from inside the ‘cause and effect chain’ and so perceive causation. Cause and effect may be nothing more than the habitual link between correlated events. If we were to observe these events from outside of the physical world there may be another explanation for these occurrences. As we cannot view events from outside our perception we can never be sure that cause and effect is actually real. However, this is an extreme form of scepticism and most people would disagree with Hume and accept that Aristotle’s notion of cause and effect is a sound one…

‘Aristotle’s theory of the four causes is not convincing’. Discuss