Introduction

Aristotle was one of the most influential and ground-breaking philosophers of his time he defied not only the moral sceptics at the time, but also his teacher Plato, who is considered the father of modern philosophy. As an empiricist, he mapped out the foundations for order in the physical world, creating a base from which, arguably, most modern science has been built on. Encyclopaedia Britannica claims Aristotle was the first genuine scientist in history, [...] every scientist is in his debt . Causation was one of his primary focuses both that of the everyday events, physical beings and the universe in its entirety. Aristotle famously is thought to have said that causation all men desire to know . In this essay, causation will be examined through Aristotle s four causes, his Prime Mover and causation as a concept, generally. It seems that, even though he presents some convincing arguments, overall, these such theories are flawed: they contain notable contradictions and holes.

Aristotle s four causes are the way in which he presents the causation of living, physical beings in essence, they answer the question of why something is what it is said to be, and what gives it those qualities as well as establishing a solution to the problem of universals. Aristotle held that everything empirically evident to us consists of two qualities: its form and its matter. More specifically, he applies concepts from his hylomorphism framework to create four distinct causes, or aitiai. Firstly, there is the material cause, which is what substance the being in question is made of the efficient cause is the agent responsible its creation the formal cause is the blueprint of the cause, its archetype, nature and ordinary function, or ergon finally, the remaining final cause is the telos, or purpose. Although, strictly speaking, the four causes should only be applied to animate objects, the analogy of a statue is often used to illustrate these causes. The statue s material cause is marble used to build it, for example, its efficient cause the sculptor, its formal cause how the sculptor imagines it to be and its final cause its appreciation by any admirer. He held that the final cause in particular is the most important and defines what a particular being is, as [E]verything that Nature makes is means to an end . Therefore, Aristotle argues that each organic being is caused and encapsulated by these four characteristics it is what defines something according to its type.

Aristotle also maintained that everything within the empirical realm is in a constant state of actuality (what it is now) versus potentiality (what it could be). He claimed that because everything is not only flittering between these two states, but also because everything is constantly in a state of motus, or motion and change, that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world or the original root of this latent change. Writing that because the universe is transient and thus everything presently has been caused by something preceding it, there must be a first cause. This first cause is the Unmoved Mover, which causes all else to move and change (through the very first change in the universe expanding ad infinitum) it is immutable, transcendent and independent of the empirical realm it is pure, unadulterated actuality and thought. Yet the Prime Mover, as it s otherwise known, is also immaterial and it is only aware, or considering itself, or else it would have potentiality and not be unmoved in its nature. The simile of the dominoes if often used to represent this idea: a line of magnetic dominoes are lined up and the similar pole of a magnet (representing the Unmoved Mover, or God) is moved close to them, causing one of them to fall, then another ad infinitum just as the magnet is unaffected by this change, in the same way the Prime Mover causes initial change and remains unchanged. Moreover, Aristotle also maintains that, just as in the simile, the Unmoved Mover does not cause physical change in objects, but rather causes their attraction to it without it being directly involved. Here, the analogy of the lover and the beloved is used by Aristotle: just as the admirer moves to be with the beloved but the admired is unaffected, the Prime Mover naturally draws objects to it but is not aware, for the sake of not sacrificing its pure actuality, of the change it is putting into motion. Thus the Prime Mover explains the origins of all the motus in this universe, according to Aristotle.

Argument 1

Aristotle s four causes, according to several philosophers, are flawed. The final cause poses problems in particular, because its teleological nature contains a fallacy. Aristotle identifies the final cause as the most important, supposing that motus in the world is due to everything having a telos and alternating between actuality and potentiality. Numerous philosophers hold that it is presumptuous as he is inexplicit with who presents this purpose. For objects, it is easy to apply a purpose (for example, a bowl s final cause is to hold food or drink within it) but as soon as it is applied to animals and humans, it becomes more complex. Many argue Aristotle s suggested theory that the purpose of these beings is to actualise all of their potentialities is very vague this completion of potentialities is an ambiguous concept, which necessitates an external judge if humans decide the potentialities and purposes of objects, it follows that this must suppose a decider of our purpose, but as Aristotle s God, the Unmoved Mover, is aware only of itself, it is unclear as to how our telos is decided. Moreover, when analysing the final cause of the universe itself, the situation becomes even more equivocal. Jean-Paul Sartre held that it is nonsensical to argue that the universe as a whole has a meaning or purpose as he said, not only does the universe not have a telos, but it is gratuitous , implying that something occurring in such an accidental fashion cannot possibly have a reason for its existence, which can translate into the belief that everything within the universe also doesn t need one.

On the other hand, there are arguments maintaining that the final cause is perfectly sound. Aristotle himself recognised that there is no independent arbiter to decide the final causes of animals and humans. Yet, because he wrote that one cannot truly have knowledge of an object, animate or no, without knowing its why or cause, he created the proposition of telos, while acknowledging he has no proof, to fulfil his own criteria. He argued that a material and efficient cause is not sufficient in answering why something is as it is. For example, knowing a spoon s first two causes as an aluminium, factory-made object, does not truly define it a pair of scissors also fits these criteria. Furthermore, in Physics II 8, Aristotle postulated the theory that final causality explains the regularity of connections. Front teeth grow sharp at the front of jaws for tearing food and molars at the back for chewing if they do not, the animal dies. To say that the reason they grow like this is coincidental is to not explain the regularity of this occurrence in a particular species and to say that this happens without a final purpose is to leave unexplained the regular connection between their growth and the animal s needs regularity needs explanation and Aristotle suggests final causality as its explanation. In the same way, all regular connections in the universe can be rationalized by telos.

However, Aristotle s dangerous example of the teeth is subliminally creating a supposition that, somehow, regular connections are conscious in some way in the example of the molars and incisors, it assumes that the teeth somehow know what is good for the animal. This is unsatisfactory, as material objects, even according to Aristotle, cannot be sentient. As such, Aristotle s science is outdated in that it does not take into account evolution. Darwin s theory of evolution means that regular connections do not have to be explained through telos. The example of the ability of teeth to seemingly be final arbitrators over the life and death of an animal is not explained through their purpose, or to do good for the being, but rather that through chance mutation (pure coincidence) and natural selection (more coincidence, to an extent), the teeth have simply been a by-product of the deaths of a multitude of un-adapted animals. As for final cause being a necessary part of explaining why something is as it is, this is not necessarily true a knife s first three causes, for example, can define it well a steel, factory-made object that cuts. There is no need for a specific purpose. In addition, even if the final cause is logically sound, there remains the fact that there is no proof of it. As well as this, Aristotle is simply complying with his own definition of true knowledge of an object many would say that the criteria for true knowledge of an object do not necessarily even need to be explained through its cause.

Argument 2

The Prime Mover also is fundamentally flawed, as many philosophers argue according to Hugh Tredennick, it is a hypocritical theory. Aristotle was known to have disagreed strongly with Plato s theory after the latter s death and instead grounded himself in a strictly empirical philosophy. He not only criticised Platonists of believing invented theories without any proof, but also for using analogies to illustrate said theories. However, Aristotle ends up with the theory of his Unmoved Mover, which is purely theoretical, equally has no evidence behind it whatsoever, is not grounded in this empirical realm and he uses an analogy to contextualise how the Prime Mover causes change by doing this, he undermines his own theory of causation. Just as Plato s forms are transcendent, external and immutable principles from reasoning, Aristotle s God ends up having these exact qualities from the same methods of thought. Moreover, he uses the analogy of the lover and the beloved whilst criticising the general use of analogies such as that of the cave . What is more, the analogy is much too specific. This is because it applies to change focused around a non-physical attraction between a person thinking of the Prime Mover while it is unaffected, yet it does not apply to any other situation. Tredennick continues to argue in the same vein, saying that there is no explanation as to how the Unmoved Mover causes physical change. If it can only be aware of itself, or else loses its state of pure actuality , it seems difficult to explain how everyday literal, physical movement can be explained by this first cause the problem of the cause of physical change seems to remain unanswered.

However, Aquinas, through his teleological argument, rebuts this. He holds that all things follow natural laws in the world which help them achieve their goal but an unthinking thing cannot have a goal unless directed by something that does think, so, in the same fashion, thinking beings must also be directed by a higher source to achieve their ultimate goal. Just as a fork s goal of being utilized for eating is realised through us using it to impale and pick up certain food, humans must be led by something towards their goal in this case, by the Prime Mover. In contrast to what Aristotelian opponents say, this direction does not need to be an actual physical push, but more an attraction or inclination to actualise some of our potentialities through the Unmoved Mover, unwittingly, causing change in us. Philosopher Gerry Hughes even uses another analogy to portray this same concept: a cat moves towards a glass of milk to drink it while the milk itself remains unmoved. Furthermore, even if the analogy is specific, this is the purpose of an analogy to give a particular example of how a theory works in practice. It is designed simply to illustrate how the Prime Mover causes non-physical change without itself being affected by change or different perception. Additionally, although it is somewhat hypocritical to criticise Platonists for theories stemming from logic alone and their use of analogies, and then carry out the same techniques, this does not mean Aristotle is any more right or wrong about his theories it may make him hypocritical, but not necessarily incorrect in his theory. Also, arguably, Aristotle made less of a jump than Plato in his arrival at infinite concepts: Plato jumped from the challenging (but possibly finite) problem of universals straight to them having to therefore be explained non-empirically through induction, while Aristotle deduced that, because change can be traced back infinitely in the physical world due to potentiality (everything finite must have another cause), the only explanation for a first cause must be outside of this realm. Therefore, Aristotle is less undermined by his supposed hypocrisy of using deduction instead of purely empirical methods.

On the other hand, many philosophers hold that Aquinas teleological argument is presumptuous as it is assuming human beings have specific purposes. Nietzsche posited the philosophical position of Nihilism this is the belief that existence is without an objective meaning, higher goal or intrinsic value, as well as there being no objective meaning to anything (in other words, all meaning must come from humans) also, there is no reasonable proof for the existence of a higher being or creator. This means that the Unmoved Mover becomes unnecessary as we can make our own decisions to live an authentic life, without the need for a director towards a predestined goal. Camus concurs with Nietzsche, as an existentialist, arguing that humans create their own purpose, because unlike inanimate objects and perhaps plants, we are born free from specific purpose. Furthermore, Dawkins, as a biological structuralist, would argue that our purpose (reliant on evolution) is simply to pass on our genetic code through our genes and so ensure the continued existence of humans. This means that there are no specific potentialities to actualise, or the need for an external being to guide us towards these things as we simply exist with the goal to reproduce for basic survival, without the need for a God or Unmoved Mover. Moreover, the analogy of both the lover and the beloved, and the cat and the milk are not only much too specific in nature, but are erroneous this is because both of the objects in these analogies are physical and so cannot be helpful in explaining the relationship between the physical and the spiritual the glass of milk can still be drunk and the beloved can be made aware of their lover. In addition, the hypocrisy in Aristotle s Prime Mover may not prove him any more correct or incorrect, but it does weaken his arguments in that he ends up utilizing the same non-physical arguments as Plato when he so openly criticised them. This also undermines his general philosophy of everything happening to be grounded in sense-experience whether or not he made less of a jump than Plato in reaching his Unmoved Mover theory through logic, he nonetheless resorts to explaining what he cannot explain (a first cause) by unempirical and spiritual means, as well as with a philosophy he previously despised.

Argument 3

Numerous philosophers believe that there are fundamental flaws within Aristotle s causation, generally Quentin Smith, for example, puts forward an argument against Aristotle s basic belief that nothing can be a cause of itself . Aristotle did not believe that something can come out of nothing, so explained how something was caused by something and that caused by something ad infinitum with his idea of God. However, Smith argues that at a sub-atomic level, in quantum theory, particles seemingly come in and out of existence without a detectable cause. This shows that a cause for everything is not always necessary and some events could be triggered by the random contingent nature of these particles, without the need for a first cause. Bertrand Russell, a 20^th Century British philosopher, posited a parallel argument, saying that the universe is there and that is all by this he meant that the universe does not, in fact, need a cause within our universe we sustain order on the basis of cause and effect, yet we have no experience of before the universe, where the laws of nature and physics could be completely different. He uses the analogy that a human needs a mother, yet the human race as a whole does not need a mother this would seem illogical and biologically impossible. In the same way, the universe does not need a mother per se, or any other cause. This may mean there is no need for a first cause as cause itself may not apply in the creation of the universe.

However, there exist counterarguments to these criticisms. Firstly, it is possible that Quentin Smith s science is simply not accurate, or developed enough. This is because all science, within our entire spectrum of knowledge, relies on cause and effect as basic beliefs, as the classical foundationalist would say if we create an exception for that fundamental rule for quantum mechanics, the implications are the crumbling of those foundations on which we base all other scientific knowledge and thus renders scientific knowledge futile. So his theory must therefore be due to a lack of knowledge, or else science in its other aspects fails us. Moreover, Aristotle, unlike Russell, appeals to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz, meaning that one cannot logically postulate an argument which does not give sufficient reason or a definite and simple answer to a problem one cannot answer a philosophical problem or question with more questions a known to which nothing further can be added must be posited to explain everything as it were. This means that Aristotle is simply giving this definite answer while Russell simply evades the problem of causation, to some degree. The theory of causation also appeals to Ockham s razor, that an elegant solution trumps a more complex one. For example, if one were to have the choice of believing invisible, unprovable and inaudible fairies float around us or this is not the case, the more elegant and logical solution is the latter in the same way, believing in one final and efficient cause under the guise of the Unmoved Mover is more elegant than believing there is no one explanation. Therefore, Aristotle s causation is an elegant solution and so more logical as a theory to be believed.

On the other hand, it is simply not true to say that, just because cause and effect do not necessarily apply to all parts of science, that it renders the rest of scientific knowledge any more true or untrue science is based on various basic beliefs and different laws apply to different branches of science cause and effect are a basic guideline for our universe, which does not mean that this cannot be proven wrong in some instances the only basic belief which is a hard-set rule for science is that theories need evidence, either through observation or mathematical reasoning for example, the two pillars of physics, quantum mechanics and relativity, have rules explaining the behaviour of microscopic particles and huge masses, yet these entities act completely differently, yet this does not mean that one or more of them are incorrect. In the same way, cause and effect can apply to some aspects of science (in this universe), but does not need to apply to all things (especially those outside of our universe. Anthony Kenny argues, like Smith, writing that things do not need something in actuality to move them physically (or mentally towards some spiritual mass of pure intellect as Aristotle would have it). He was quoted saying: the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing . This means that there needs to be no explanation for the cause of the universe at all. Furthermore, Hume, a rationalist, argues in the same in he says that we use our inductive processes to create causation out of correlation in other words, we see usual sequences and patterns (such as the sun coming up every day so far) and induce from them that one causes the other (so the sun will rise tomorrow) for example, if one were to drop a pen one million times and it falls down every time, we presume that the next time, the pen will drop too, yet this is not necessarily true. In the same way, we have induced that the universe needs a cause as everything we have seen has a cause, yet this is not necessarily true. In addition, Leibniz s Principle of Sufficient Reason contains a fallacy as to which nothing further can be added seems like a criterion which is too simplistic it is easy to create a simple explanation and somewhat rushed solution to the existence of everything as we know it, instead of admitting a lack of knowledge. Thus, Ockham s razor falls into the same trap, as the most elegant solution does not equate with a correct one. For example, there is a cult that preaches the following belief: all negativity, including Hitler s actions, genocides, torture, bad moods, floods and so and so forth, is caused by a build-up of negative orgones and all positivity is caused by a build-up of positive orgones this solution appeals to both Leibniz s principle and Ockham s razor it is a both a solution to which nothing further can be added , it is logical and elegant, but obviously not true. In the same way, the Prime Mover, although appealing to these principles, is not necessarily a correct solution for causation. Finally, physicist Stephen Hawking concurs with Russell, while believing in multiverse theory, he says it is not necessary [for] God to set the universe going precisely due to there being possible other universes with different laws of physics, one existing without cause and effect is a strong possibility, so such conditions could have been present before our universe as we have no universe within our knowledge to make a comparison with, we cannot therefore definitely say that cause and effect apply to all universes at all times. Thus, Aristotle s need for a first cause seems somewhat redundant.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that Aristotle s theory of causation seems plausible and logical at first glance, it is, in fact, fundamentally flawed in many areas. Although his final cause, for example, is homogenous with Aquinas teleological argument, a plethora of philosophers, including Nietzsche and Camus would say that humans simply do not need a guide (the Unmoved Mover) to achieve our telos as we do not have a telos and all meaning and purpose is derived from the individual himself. Aristotle s theory is flawed because he claims that the Prime Mover is only aware of itself, yet at the same time he contradicts himself in arguing that it somehow must cause physical change to happen. Not only this, but he undermines his own philosophical standpoint, resorting to using the analogies and spiritual solutions to problems he so openly disliked. Furthermore, Aristotle is very vague in his argument stating that the purpose of humans is to actualise their potentialities and even negates his own analogy of a statue, as final causality is not supposed to apply to inanimate objects. Moreover, he presumes that nothing can be a cause of itself without any evidence and with outdated science (not taking into account quantum theory). Additionally, he presumes, according to Kenny, the need for something to cause any and all movement in the physical world thus, as stated by Russell and numerous others, his theory is presumptuous, supposing the need for a cause for the universe where it, perhaps, does not even need one at all, let alone the need for telos and an efficient cause on an individual basis or the Prime Mover on a universal basis.