SOME IDEAS WERE INSPIRED BY LUKE

The Four Causes: An Aristotelian Perspective

Personal Reflections

I was recently inspired by different perspectives on life after reading a blog post from a certain author1 that touched on the topic of swapping an iPhone for a Nissan, listening to a speech by a youtuber2, watching footage from a visitor from Thailand3, browsing content on TikTok, and learning about the frustrations of a certain Internet user4. This experience ultimately made me realize how diverse the approaches of people who are trying to create their lives in the modern world are.

I begin to wonder if I sometimes over-analyze the meaning of the actions I take, instead of simply acting. I often avoid the responsibility of taking a creative approach to adult life5, and instead fall into the thicket of various ideologies6 and literal me cults7. Does every thing really need to have a deep justification for its existence? Should I ask myself why I act in this way and not in that way, as others do, in order to better understand my purpose?

I feel the fatigue associated with the constant transition from my true self to my character, which is dependent on hormonal moods. All these ideologies create more confusion in me than I would like8. I reduce life to consumption and enjoyment. I don’t consider the cost to the environment, I focus only on what I can gain for myself. What puzzles me is why, as we are all hosts on this planet, I identify with the host role instead of pursuing my own biological desires9 (lack of innovation, concerns).

The Four Aristotelian Causes: A Comprehensive Overview

Aristotle, in his Physics10, argued that there are four causes behind everything that exists. These causes answer the fundamental questions of “How” or “Why” something is the way it is.

The Four Causes Explained

  1. Material Cause (Matter)

    The cause is called, first, matter from which something is made, for example, bronze is the cause of a statue and silver is the cause of a cup, and the types of bronze and silver.

  2. Formal Cause (Form and Pattern)

    The cause is form and pattern, i.e., the definition of essence and its types: for example, for an octave, the ratio of 2 : 1 and, in general, the number and parts covered by the definition.

  3. Efficient Cause (Source of Change)

    The cause is also the first principle of change or rest; for example, the counselor is the cause of the action, and the father is the cause of the child, and, in general, the perpetrator is the cause of the act.

  4. Final Cause (Purpose)

    The cause is also the purpose, that is, what something is for; for example, health is the cause of a walk. “Why does someone walk?” - we ask - “for health.”

Understanding Causality

Multiple causes can exist for the same thing, and they can be:

  • Direct or incidental
  • Earlier or later
  • Proper or accidental
  • Potential or actual

Modern Interpretations

The Fourth Cause in Contemporary Context

Our post-materialist view of the Final Cause differs significantly from Aristotle’s original conception. Aristotle viewed grammar and cognition as direct reflections of reality itself - a view shared with the “Speculative Grammarians” of the Middle Ages (speculum meaning “mirror”).

The Enlightenment Shift

Key turning point: The rejection of Formal and Final Causes during the early Enlightenment marked a fundamental shift from the Aristotelean worldview to modern materialism.

Francis Bacon11 in Novum Organum12:

  • Relegated Final Cause to inter-human behavior only
  • Dismissed Formal Cause as desperata13 (“hopeless”)
  • Retained Material and Efficient causes under different terminology

Contemporary Debates

Evolution and Teleology

Darwin's Theory Questioned

The relationship between evolutionary theory and teleological thinking raises important philosophical questions:

  • How can we discuss evolution as goal-oriented while rejecting Final Causes?
  • Can we truly understand natural selection without some form of teleological framework?

Modern Perspectives

Understanding something intuitively largely amounts to knowing its Final Cause.

The debate continues between:

  • Strict materialist interpretations
  • Neo-Thomistic approaches
  • Emergentist perspectives
  • Teleosemantic theories in philosophy of mind

Darwin and Natural Selection in Detail

If different shapes and sizes of teeth grew in different locations of the mouth, then it would be appropriate to talk of them as lacking a Final Cause. Things that appear randomly and inconsistently do not necessarily have Final Causes, but if something happens invariably, we can trust that it has a Final Cause.

What I mean here is not that Darwinian natural selection is a “fraud,” but rather that it can inadvertently reintroduce a kind of teleological thinking it claims to exclude. While I fully acknowledge the scientific foundation of evolutionary theory and common descent, I want to highlight that when we say “this evolved for that,” we are effectively invoking a purpose-driven language—something that strictly materialist views often reject.

My critique is aimed at the unspoken philosophical assumptions (e.g., adaptationism that oversteps its bounds), not at the wealth of evidence supporting evolution itself.

But if we actually limit ourselves from talking in purpose-driven/Final-Cause statements, the most communicative “scientific” thing we can say is “Humans share a common ancestor with other animals, but we became different.” The issue of “Why” is dreaded “metaphysics.” In truth, we actually need a Final Cause to understand anything.

Contemporary Modernist Thinking

If you want to point your finger at a single philosophical change that defines the shift from the Aristotelean worldview of antiquity and the Middle Ages to the materialism of modernity, it is the rejection of the Formal and Final Causes in the early Enlightenment.

Does it make sense in today’s world to want something other than simple survival? Recently, I’ve heard many opinions on the desirability of existence, and everyone has their own prescription.

Just ask your modern brain: “Does everything really have a purpose?” You will probably reflexively think back “No,” therefore, you do not believe in a Final Cause to everything. The same is true of the Formal Cause, both of them seeming to assume that there is a kind of conscious agency behind the action.

The Universal Validity of Formal and Final Causes

Even a Materialistic Universe Generates Formal and Final Causes. In trying to escape them, modern science has really made them more irreplaceable.

The progressive line following animal instincts prevailed, earlier generations got rid of the fetters imposed by their preceding generations. Sentiment was replaced by metaphysical nihilism.

Laws of Form emerge from very simple computational operations and define the formal structure of things that arise in nature. At the same time, any kind of selective pressure or survival mechanism like Darwinian selection will naturally produce structure arranged to a goal.

For the Aristotelian up until Newton (the last of the magicians in J.M. Keynes’ terms), this is us uncovering the Mind of God.

A conscious human mind is not a prerequisite for them, neither for Formal Causes. You actually can keep even a very clumsy materialism while accepting these traditional notions. Indeed, to understand something’s Final and Formal Causes is to truly understand it such that the Material and Efficient Causes seem like mere details.

Reconciling Traditional and Modern Views

The Return of Formal Cause

What about the idea that everything must have a form/plan behind its creation? If we are willing to concede that a Final Cause can arise from natural selection, what about a Formal Cause?

Natural examples of form include:

  • Laws of Form
  • Fibonacci spirals
  • Golden ratios
  • Emergent properties

This is not a rejection of the Formal Cause, but states the truth that it is universal. “Form” needn’t just be a conscious plan like the sculptor’s plan for a hunk of marble, but a form that emerges from natural principles.

Synthesis of Old and New

Even a Materialistic Universe Generates Formal and Final Causes. In trying to escape them, modern science has really made them more irreplaceable.

For the Aristotelian up until Newton (the last of the magicians in J.M. Keynes’ terms), this is us uncovering the Mind of God.

Key conclusions:

  • Final Causes are universal where unchecked spontaneity occurs
  • A conscious human mind is not a prerequisite for them
  • Understanding something’s Final and Formal Causes is to truly understand it

Notes and References

  1. George Hotz’s Blog  ↩

  2. Kidology Channel ↩

  3. Yuttadhammo’s Channel ↩

  4. Dr. Piotr Napieraa ↩

  5. The distinction between childhood (consumption) and adulthood (creation) represents a fundamental shift in life approach and responsibility. This phrase refers to the fundamental distinction between the two phases of life: childhood and adulthood. Children receive ready-made content and experiences, learn, explore the world and acquire knowledge, but rarely engage in large-scale creative activities. Reaching adulthood involves a shift from the dominance of consumption to active participation in the creative process. ↩

  6. Social Media Reference ↩

  7. Personal reference  ↩

  8. Related to consumption patterns in modern society. ↩

  9. See Consumption Analysis ↩

  10. Physics by Aristotle ↩

  11. Francis Bacon (1561-1621) - Also known as Lord Verulam or Viscount St. Albans, was an English philosopher, jurist, writer and politician. His works were highly influential in the development of scientific method and philosophy. He is regarded as one of the founders of the modern scientific method based on experimentation, and as the founder of empiricism. ↩

  12. In his book “Novum Organum Scientiarum” (“New Instrument for the Acquisition of Knowledge”), Bacon classified four illusions as idols: the tribe, the cave, the market and the theater. These idols represent errors of human reasoning and understanding. ↩

  13. The “desperata” argument refers to a situation where existing scientific theories or models are inadequate to explain observed facts, but are still held due to attachment to tradition. ↩