This is from a few years ago from before I had each post on a separate page. I thought I'd repost it since I was going to discuss causality and wanted to link to the story. Still it is an helpful discussion of Aristotle's four senses of causation. They often aren't taken into consideration as much as they should since science has tended to make us think just in terms of efficient causation. I should add that reading up on Leibniz on causality is probably helpful as well.
CAUSALITY IS ONE OF THOSE NOTIONS we all think we understand, but really don't. When you start doing advanced physics it gets even more complex. One unfortunate result of "modernism's" tendency to interpret everything in light of mechanism is a narrowing and changing of what causality meant. Aristotle had four basic categories of causality: formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and teleological cause.
Formal causation might be characterized as the idea of a thing. If I have some idea of what I'm about to do, then the idea is the formal cause of my acts. It determines the form created.
Material causation is cause in terms of what something is composed of. For instance the material cause of water is atoms. A bowl made of wood and an identically shaped bowl made of metal differ in their material causes because what they are made of differs.
Efficient causation is closer to what we consider causality. It deals with the means and manner in which something comes into being. Today we tend to think of it in terms of objects causing an other object to behave in a certain way through forces. Aristotle was much broader in his use. For him human making was the classic example of efficient cause. Thus for Aristotle it includes skills, tools, as well as interactions. That human element of a knowing, skilled, acting mind has been divorced and has, for some, rendered causlaity much more problematic.
Teleological causation or final causation is basically cause in terms of goal. I want to get a drink of water and that causes me to go to the sink. Teleological causes actually do pop up in the softer sciences a fair bit. However the harder sciences which tend to think only in terms of efficient cause do not like teleological arguments. This becomes an issue for those who feel that biology must, in theory, be able to be reduced to physics.
Without going too far into a discussion of causality, I'll just say that frequently we make assumptions regarding causality which are due to muddled or fuzzy thinking. Being aware of what causality is and trying to be clear in our use is a must. This is especially true in modern physics where classical notions are problematic. It is very common for physicists to think in terms of a causality that made sense for classical physics but which confuses issues in modern science.
John Sowa, one of my favorite philosophers, has an excellent discussion of causality from a Peircean approach. Peirce is one of the more important neglected minds of the modern era. I honestly think that he was far ahead of his time. While he is recognized for his innovations in logic, few know how his metaphysics is able to solve many problems in philosophy.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble