Aristotle, Statue and Tree:
Today, almost twenty-four centuries after, it is really amazing to know how the ancient physicists and philosophers thought about the causal-connectedness of things happening in nature in such a systematic and structured manner!
The pre-eminent example is the Aristotelian framework of causality. According to Aristotle, the causes behind the occurrence of a natural process are of the following four distinct kinds: The ‘Material’ cause
The ‘Formal’ cause (to be interpreted as Formative cause or referring to ‘form’) The ‘Efficient’ cause, AND
The ‘Final’ cause.
Of course, reference to some specific context is essential to clarify the interpretation of these terms. Two contexts — discussed prominently in several references — to explain how these causes operate — are the familiar processes of the ‘production of an artifact such as a bronze statue’ and the ‘growth of a plant’.
Let’s consider the process of the production of a bronze statue.
Which MATERIAL could be ‘said to cause’ the making of a bronze statue? — The answer is, obviously, the bronze! Okay, so does it mean that — you get some ‘bronze’ material and the statue is done?
No…there are several intermediate processes: for example, the bronze has to be melted, then poured in order to acquire the shape of the statue, etc…
This set of intermediate processes creates the potentiality of making the statue as per the required ‘shape’ or the required ‘form’. Hence, this set represents the FORM-AL or (according to the modern usage) the FORMATIVE cause behind the production of the statue.
Now — can the ‘melting’, the ‘pouring’ and the related processes be implemented in any arbitrary fashion with a hope of producing the required artifact? No — without the manifestation of the knowledge for making the statue, its production is not possible. It is this ‘manifestation of the knowledge’ that represents the EFFICIENT cause.
(Note that the Aristotelian idea of causality focusses on the specific ‘art-based knowledge’ — i.e. the art of bronze-casting the statue — rather than the artist having necessary expertise.)
These three causes together seem to imply the complete story. The fourth kind — the ‘final’ cause — seems unnecessary!
However, the Aristotelian scientific philosophy defends its necessity by pointing out that the FINAL cause in this case is ‘the statue’ itself .
For — The bronze material is chosen ‘for producing the statue’.
A model is abstracted from reality ‘for producing the statue’.
A mold is prepared ‘for producing the statue’.
The bronze is melted and poured ‘for producing the statue’.
Each of these stages is aimed at the specific outcome — ‘the production of the statue’.
That’s why, the statue enters in the explanation of each stage of the artistic production — representing the final cause — for the sake of which everything in the production process is happening.
As another example, let’s briefly consider how the Aristotelian framework of causality explains the process of the growth of a plant or a tree:
The MATERIAL cause in this case is the matter out of which the tree is constituted: soil, air, water and sunlight.
The EFFICIENT cause behind the growth of the tree is the external action of the planting of the seed.
FORM-AL or FORMATIVE cause is represented by an inner forming activity, resulting not only in the growth of the trees, but also in the development of their various distinct forms (different botanical structures/families etc.).Just like the specific outcome of the production of the statue, implicit in all the above stages is the potential outcome of the ‘grown tree’ — representing the FINAL CAUSE in this example.
[For example, it is not possible to make reference to the inner processes creating the potentiality for an oak tree from the acorn, without simultaneously referring to the oak tree as the expected ultimate ‘actuality’ arising out of that potentiality.]
Does this mean that — the ‘Aristotelian Causality’ implies a world-view in which all these four kinds of cause operate behind the occurrence of each and every natural process? Or, does it imply that a scientific, causal explanation for the occurrence of any natural process may involve up to four kinds of cause?
The Aristotelian study of natural processes has been generally understood as a search for the answers to the WHY questions. Given the tremendous developments in modern science, and especially in physics — can this statement be modified?
Can it be said that — the study of nature involves answers, also to the WHAT (system in question and the tenets), to the WHERE-WHEN (spacetime) questions as well as the HOW-WHY (paradigm) questions — leading to a generalized, modern notion of causality?
Exploration continues…
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-vikram-athalye/recent-activity/articles
