9. Four Causes and the Method of Learning from Predecessors

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Four Causes #

Aristotle distinguishes four fundamental ways something can be responsible for the being or becoming of another:

• Matter (Material Cause): That from which something comes to be, existing within it. The second part of the definition—“existing within it”—is essential because it distinguishes matter from the mover (who is not in the product) and from opposites (which are not in the product).
• Form (Formal Cause): The definition or what-it-is-to-be (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι); what makes something the kind of thing it is. Sometimes includes the exemplar or model as extrinsic form.
• Mover/Maker (Efficient Cause): That whence first there is a beginning of motion (in the broad sense of any kind of change). Examples include the carpenter (by art/reason) and the father (by nature).
• End (Final Cause): That for the sake of which something is or is done (τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα).

The Method of Learning from Predecessors #

Berquist develops Aristotle’s methodological principle: since wisdom is the most desirable knowledge and acquiring it is the aim of philosophy, one must choose the most efficient path. Two ways exist to acquire knowledge you do not have:

1. Discover it yourself
2. Learn it from someone who already possesses it

Learning from predecessors is reasonable because:

• It is more efficient than individual discovery
• If you try to discover everything yourself, no science or art would develop
• The honor of possessing knowledge is the same whether discovered or learned; seeking honor over knowledge is pride
• One should only attempt independent discovery if predecessors have failed to achieve the goal

Aristotle’s practice: He examines what predecessors said about causes, why they said it, and whether their accounts are sufficient. Only if he finds them insufficient does he make his own investigation.

The Three Corollaries #

First Corollary: Multiple Causes of the Same Thing The same thing can have many causes of different kinds. A wooden chair exemplifies all four: wood (matter), shape (form), carpenter (mover), and sitting (end). One must not choose between these causes but recognize how they cooperate.

Second Corollary: Reciprocal Causation Through Different Kinds Two things can be causes of each other, but through different kinds of causation:

• Exercise produces health (efficient causation)
• Health is the end for which one exercises (final causation)

Other examples: premises and conclusion; multiplying two numbers to know their product.

Third Corollary: Causation by Presence and Absence The same thing can be responsible for contraries through its presence or absence. The captain causes ship safety or destruction through attention or inattention. A student causes knowledge or ignorance through application or non-application.

The Scope of Causes in Different Sciences #

Not all sciences examine all four causes. Geometry, for example, primarily concerns itself with form. The investigator must discern which kinds of cause are relevant to his inquiry. When defining marriage (“a stable union of man and woman by mutual choice, ordered to children”), all four causes are engaged.

God as Cause #

In theological discourse, God is understood as having two-and-a-half kinds of causation:

• Efficient cause: “I am the beginning and the end of all things” (α and ω)
• Extrinsic formal cause: Model or exemplar (“made in his image and likeness”; “Be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect”)
• Not material or intrinsic formal cause: God is not the matter of things nor their intrinsic form

Key Arguments #

Why Learning from Predecessors is Reasonable #

The Efficiency Argument

• Two paths to knowledge: discovery or learning
• Both are valid, but learning is more efficient
• If everyone attempted independent discovery, sciences would never develop
• Time spent learning is more fruitfully invested than time spent rediscovering

The Pride Objection and Response

• Objection: Is it not more glorious to discover knowledge yourself?
• Response:
  • Gloriousness attaches to knowledge, not to the manner of acquiring it
  • If you seek individual discovery for honor’s sake, you love honor more than knowledge
  • You will gain less knowledge while pursuing more honor
  • “You’re a lover of honor more than a lover of knowing”

The Conditional Independence

• If predecessors have succeeded in achieving the goal, learn from them
• If they have failed, then you have some reason to attempt independent discovery
• Even then, you may not do so “without their help”

The Value of Examining Predecessors #

Aristotle’s method in Metaphysics Book 1 serves two purposes:

1. Negative: Sets the stage for critique of their sufficiency
2. Positive: Confirms that there are exactly four kinds of causes (and no others) by reviewing whether predecessors touched upon any additional kinds

Important Definitions #

Αἴτιον (aition, causa in Latin) #

That which is responsible for the being or becoming of another. Connected etymologically to responsibility (αἴτιος). A cause makes something exist or come to be.

Matter (ὕλη, materia) #

That from which something comes to be, existing within it. This definition’s second part is essential to distinguish matter from efficient causes and from opposites.

Form (μορφή, forma / τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι) #

The what-it-is-to-be; the definition or essence that makes something the kind of thing it is. Can be intrinsic (the form in the thing itself) or extrinsic (an exemplar or model that is imitated).

Mover/Maker (κινοῦν, movens) #

That whence first there is a beginning of motion/change. Operates through nature or reason/art. Later theology introduces the concept of creator as a more specific kind of mover.

End (τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα, finis) #

That for the sake of which something is or is done. The purpose or aim for which an agent acts or a thing is made.

Predecessor (προηγούμενος) [implied] #

Those philosophers who came before Aristotle and investigated the same questions about causes and first principles.

Examples & Illustrations #

The Wooden Chair #

Illustrates all four causes simultaneously:

• Matter: The wood from which it is made (and which remains in it)
• Form: The shape that makes it a chair (as opposed to something else)
• Mover: The carpenter who shaped the wood
• End: Sitting—the purpose for which it was made

These are not competing explanations but cooperative ones. The wood does not exclude the carpenter’s responsibility; the carpenter’s work does not exclude the wood’s necessity.

Exercise and Health #

Reciprocal causation through different kinds:

• When asked “Why is he healthy?” answer: “Because he exercises” (efficient causation)
• When asked “Why does he exercise?” answer: “For the sake of health” (final causation)
• The two statements are both true but operate through different kinds of causation

Premises and Conclusion in Logic #

• Putting premises together is the efficient cause (producer) of the conclusion
• The conclusion is the final cause for which one puts the premises together

The Captain and the Ship #

The captain causes the safety or destruction of the ship:

• By attention (presence of proper care), the ship is safe
• By inattention (absence of proper care), the ship is destroyed The same agent causes contraries through presence or absence of a quality.

Multiplying Numbers #

If I multiply 10 by 50 cents to determine cost:

• My multiplying is the efficient cause (producer) of my knowing the result
• The knowledge of the cost is the final cause for which I multiply

Brevity and Wisdom #

Shakespeare: “Brevity is the soul of wit” (and wisdom). Just as a rectangle with the same perimeter as a square always has less area—you contain more area with less perimeter—so the wise person says more with fewer words. God says all with one word (the Word, the Logos).

Notable Quotes #

“Aristotle, in Book 1, after the preamble, will go back and look at what his predecessors said about causes, right? And why they said it, right? And then you examine whether what they said about causes was sufficient for our purposes, right?”

“If there’s someone who already possesses this knowledge, right? Should I try to discover it all by myself, or should I try to learn from the person who already knows it? … But even if I could discover it by myself, right? Which, you know, is a question, you know? Should I do that for everything I don’t know?”

“You might say that if there are some who already have looked for the first causes, right? And if they have succeeded in coming to know them, isn’t it a reasonable thing to do to try to learn from them, right?”

“You’re seeking more honor than knowing, right. If you seek to discover everything by yourself, because you’re not going to get very far in knowing, you’re going to have more honor and less knowing.”

“Is the knowledge which you’ve discovered yourself better than the knowledge you’ve learned from another? … It’s the same answer. It’s the same answer.”

“Because, is the knowledge which you’ve discovered yourself better than the knowledge you’ve learned from another? It’s the same. Yeah, yeah. You might say there’s more honor attached to discovering it yourself, right? But you’re a lover of honor of knowing, right? Right. You see? You’re seeking more honor than knowing.”

Questions Addressed #

Is it reasonable to learn from predecessors rather than discover everything yourself? #

Answer: Yes. Learning is more efficient; it allows sciences and arts to develop; the knowledge acquired is the same whether discovered or learned; attempting independent discovery for honor’s sake reveals a preference for honor over knowledge, which is a form of pride.

If predecessors have failed, should you then attempt independent discovery? #

Answer: Yes, then you have some reason to attempt it yourself. However, even in this case, you may not do so entirely “without their help”—their failures can guide your investigation.

Can the same thing have multiple causes? #

Answer: Yes. Because there are four different kinds of causes, the same thing commonly has all four operating upon it. The wooden chair has wood, shape, carpenter, and sitting as its four causes. These do not compete but cooperate.

Can two things be causes of each other? #

Answer: Yes, but through different kinds of causation. Exercise and health are mutual causes: exercise is the efficient cause of health; health is the final cause for which one exercises.

How many of the four causes are relevant in any given inquiry? #

Answer: This depends on the science or subject matter. Geometry concerns itself primarily with form. Natural philosophy may employ all four. The investigator must determine which kinds of cause are relevant to his inquiry.

Does God exemplify all four kinds of causation? #

Answer: No, God exemplifies two-and-a-half: He is the efficient cause (“the beginning and the end”), the extrinsic formal cause (exemplar or model), but not the material cause or intrinsic formal cause of creatures.