AS Part b) Aristotle's 4 Causes

b) 'Aristotle's Four Causes fail as a description of the real world.' Discuss. (10)

I agree with the above statement, as I believe that the four causes do not provide a successful description of the real world.

Firstly, Aristotle is suggesting that ecery obkect in the world has a purpose, and therefore requires an explanation for its existence. However it seems more likely that some things just exist as 'brute fact', as Russell would say, and we don't need to try and find an explanation for everything. Some may argue with this, saying that God created the world therefore must have created everything within the world with a purpose in mind, otherwise an object's existence would be useless. However, there is no evidence to suggest that anything was made with a purpose. As Dawkins stated, we 'see the world through purpose-tinted spectacles'. We ask the question 'why do things exist?' and therefore assume that there is an answer. However Dawkins is suggesting that the question itself is invalid, and instead we should simply accept the existence of the world without trying to impose an explanation upon it. Therefore, Aristotle's theory of the Four Causes is unnecessary and simply speculation, and should not be applied to the real world.

Furthermore, Aristotle assumes that everything has a cause, and therefore the Prime Mover is the first cause and the reason for the world's existence. However, the principle of causation is untrue. As Hume stated, 'it is possible for us to conceive of a thing not existing one second and existing the next', therefore it cannot be a priori that every effect needs a cause. Therefore we can dismiss Aristotle's theory, which is based on causation and the Prime Mover being the ultimate cause of the universe. Some may argue that Hume is wrong, and everything does need a cause, as we can see from observation that everything has a chain of efficient causes, and 'without a first cause there would be no subsequent causes', as put forward in Aquinas' Summae Theologiae. On the other hand, modern science has now shown that in actual fact, not everything does have a cause. Quantum physics has been able to show that particles can randomly come into existence with no apparent cause, which completely contradicts one of Aristotle's most fundamental principles, and therefore his theory of the Four Causes is no longer valid or successful when applied to the real world.

In conclusion, despite Aristotle putting forward a logical argument to explain everything's existence using the Four Causes, I do not believe that it is a successful theory when applied to the real world, as not everything can be categorised into the four causes. Some things exist for no apparent reason, and we need to accept this without unnecessarily trying to provide explanations.

Mark: 10/10