The theory put forward by the philosopher Aristotle regarding causality is one of his most famous and influential. In fact, his ideas have dominated perceptions on this issue in most of Western philosophy since his work appeared around 2,300 years ago. His theory centers on the idea of ​​what causes things to exist and how many different causes there are; for Aristotle, it was necessary to try to study the phenomena that we experience in our world. His theory is also known as the “doctrine of the four causes.” These four causes are generally described as “material”, “effective”, “formal” and “final”. I will examine these four causes in depth separately, and I will also critically examine the specific strengths of Aristotle's theory and the broader issues surrounding it.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'?Get the original essayAristotle's theory of 'material cause' is accepted as one of the leading accounts of causation. If we accept that everything in our world is material, then we must examine what these materialities are made of. For example, a knife is made of steel or a box is made of cardboard. He also attempts to use the material cause as an example of the properties of the object; knives are strong because they are made of steel, etc. Aristotle believed that the material cause had two elements, prime matter and proximate matter. Near matter is matter composed of objects with properties. For example, Aristotle would say that if a computer is made of cells and electricity, then those cells and that electricity have an immediate relationship. Raw material, on the other hand, is described as a necessity, but Aristotle is not sure that it exists. After all, he believed (like many Greeks of that era) that the elements constituted all that we can recognize empirically. Prime matter is the matter of the elements, which Aristotle describes as “pure power.” Such raw material is capable of existing in any form and exists outside and in everything. Plato had put forward a similar idea, as described in his “Timaeus”; there must be some other external "thing" that does not correspond to Plato's belief about the forms, much less to his idea of ​​what animates them. Plato thus maintains that there must be “a receptacle for everything that comes into existence”. However, he refers to this element of the universe as "space" rather than "matter". Aristotle's and Plato's theories of "prime matter" have been criticized by Daniel W. Graham, who asserts that such thinking involves a paradox. William Charlton also opposed the concept of raw material, basing his criticism on questions of ambiguous classification. As he writes, “Is the difference between saying nothing and the difference between saying that the raw material remains just a matter of words? » Both modern scholars argue that there may be nothing left, but raw material is not necessarily produced as a result. Ultimately, they argue that there is no way to know whether the property cited by Aristotle exists or not; therefore, this is all a “non-argument”. However, Charlton points out that there are problematic issues behind the "metaphysics" of Aristotle's thoughts. Aristotle's next theory of causality is the idea of ​​"efficiency." An effective cause is the concept of “what makes it exist”. For example, if we looked at a knife, the knife was made by us humans because we needed to cut things. This factor would beeffectively the efficient cause of the knife. Such a cause can also be related to internal movement or motivation. The internal movement of living beings would be growth or “soul”. Adapting Greek philosophy to Christian thought, Aquinas used Aristotle's theory of efficacy in 3 of his 5 proofs of the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas explains that we can see that everything we observe is the product of an effective cause; so there must have been a starting point to avoid an infinite regress. He then assumes that this “responsible without cause” is God. Yet one criticism of this construction is that if we can foresee an infinite future, then it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that there is also an infinite past. There is also the question of whether God is potentially an infinite regress, since according to the logic of causality there will always have to be something that caused the uncaused. If we are to accept that there is an uncaused cause, then why should we assume that this cause is God, or that it has the characteristics of the Judeo-Christian God? Aristotle's third theory of causality is the "formal" theory. Here he argues that not only is everything made of matter, but everything also has form. The shape of a perceptible object is what defines it and separates it from something of the same material. For example, a table and a pencil can both be made from wood, but their “shapes” make them very different objects. The material cause is described as “potentiality,” while the formal cause is “reality.” The idea of ​​form also applies to living things. Aristotle described the theory of forms as a “difficult and controversial” subject. The idea is very closely associated with Plato's "world of forms", but it is perhaps a slightly more refined version, because Aristotle took into account thinkers before him, while still managing to show how his ideas are different with the four causes. Aristotle's theory is also visible in the material world, unlike Plato's theory, which relies on the presence of an undetectable world. The idea of ​​form has, however, been criticized because it does not take into account the constant flow of objects and the material world. We could not take into account all the possibilities of the shapes of an object. Although something can be shaped like a table, it can also be used as a chair or a murder weapon. A counterargument to this objection is the idea of ​​a dull knife. Although the efficient cause has been compromised, this does not affect the formal cause; it is not that the knife is no longer a knife, but that it is now simply a “bad knife”. This criticism could, however, be subject to ethical criticism if we take into account Aristotle's belief regarding our own telos, that is, reasoning. a human is incapable of reasoning due to mental disability or different beliefs regarding our telos, does that make that human a bad human? The fourth and final cause is the “final” cause. The final cause is explained by Aristotle as the end of. what things are in motion. This is also described as the end goal or telos. The final cause is not external to the subject, but is an intrinsic part of its nature. For a seed, the final cause may be to become a seed. For a knife, the final cause may be cutting a watermelon in half. Aristotle believed that the final cause for humans, and what differentiates us from other animals, is our ability to reason and pursue happiness (which only a human can have). obtained thanks to our ability to reason). However, one may wonder whether Aristotle is correct in saying that humans are.