Aristotle

• Born in Macedonia
• His father was a royal doctor
• Nicknames the Master and The Philosopher
• Tutored Alexander the Great
• Was a student of Plato
• When teaching he walked, his students were therefore called the wanderers
• Books were his notes
• Aristotle's four causes are material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause.
• Wished to learn for practical wisdom
• What makes people happy, was his biggest question
• 11 Virtues:

  1. Courage
  2. Temperance
  3. Liberality
  4. Magnificence
  5. Magnanimity
  6. Pride
  7. Patience
  8. Truthfulness
  9. Witness
  10. Friendliness
  11. Modesty
• Wished for better teachers and more guidance
• The Prime Mover:

  • answer to the final cause of the universe -> unmovable mover
  • first of all substances
  • pure actuality
  • attracts others towards him
  • eternal
  • perfectly good
  • only thinks of himself
  • necessary
  • immaterial
• The Prime Mover Strengths and Weaknesses:

  + no argument to contradict the argument

  + four causes can be applied to everything that exists

  + strong compared to Plato's forms

  + defended by the natural world

  -rely on experiences that can change

  -no concrete evidence in the material world

  -perhaps things happen for a chance

  -different understanding from God
• Much of his teachings lack clarity as he didn't write them down
• 4 causes:

  1. Material-> what it is made from
  2. Formal -> the form of the materials
  3. Efficient -> who made it
  4. Final -> its purpose
• a seed has the potential to become a tree but only if certain conditions are met will that potential become actual
• Actuality is the way something is in its current state. Potentiality is the way actual things could become given certain conditions
• Criticisms of the Four Causes:

  Francis Bacon (17th century), claimed final causation has no place in empirical science. It is a metaphysical issue, a universe operating by the laws of physics seems to be completely without purpose.
• Defence of the Four Causes:

  McGrath points out that modern Christian philosophers (e.g. Swinburne & Polkinghorne) have argued that science is limited and cannot answer all questions. It can tell us the what but not the why. Science can tell us what the universe is like, but it cannot tell us why it is this way, nor why it exists. It cannot answer questions about purpose and therefore cannot be used to disregard the existence of purpose.
• Sartre argued that there was no objective telos/purpose because “existence precedes essence” meaning humans exist before they have a defined purpose and so have to subjectively define their purpose for themselves. Sartre’s argument was a psychological one, that people cling to fabricated notions of objective purpose like religion or Aristotle’s ‘final cause/telos’ because they are afraid of not having a purpose
• Newton challenged Aristotle’s belief that an object which is moved will simply stop moving by itself. When moved, an object will move until met by an equal and opposite reaction. The problem with observing this is that on earth, the strong gravity and effect of friction amounts to an equal and opposite reaction on the movement of an object which causes it to stop. It doesn’t just stop by itself due to rest being its natural state, as Aristotle thought. This means that Aristotle’s inference that the constant motion in the universe must be maintained by something like a prime mover is false.