Unknown

[Music] hello and welcome to philosophy vibe the channel will be discussing debate different philosophical ideas today we're going to be focusing on one of the great ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle and his theory of causation by now Aristotle was an empiricist he concerned himself with a posterior ride knowledge Aristotle studied the empirical world around him in order to develop his philosophy and seek the truth this is why many regard Aristotle as one of the greatest scientists as well as a philosopher this is unlike his teacher Plato who believed that truth can be discovered through a priori

knowledge and through reason plato was a rationalist and believed reason was the source of truth without the need for external experience yes s is right but Aristotle firmly believed that true knowledge must come from within the empirical world I see now after studying and observing the empirical world Aristotle noticed that every organism is in a state of constant change a state of flux as you might describe it everything is constantly moving or changing some way right because everything is changing Aristotle argued that everything is moving towards some sort of goal some sort of purpose or

end bellos as he referred to it he argued that all properties either possess potentiality or actuality ie something possesses the potential to reach its purpose or it has actually reached its purpose let's imagine a seed this is the potential to become a lovely plant and when it becomes a plant it has reached its thinnest it has reached its actuality of a plant yes I understand however Aristotle argued that as everything is in a constant state of change this change must be caused in order for us to truly have knowledge of a certain thing we need

to know its cause how it has come to be and how it goes from its potentiality to his actuality in order to answer this Aristotle developed the four causes what are the four causes we have the matter cause the efficient cause the formal cause and the final cause right so let me explain them further let's take an inanimate object a wooden chair the material cause is the material the thing is made of so for the chair the material would be the wood now wood alone is not enough to make a chair of course then we

have the formal cause this is the actual form or shape the thing needs to be in order to reach its Telos so for the chair the formal cause would be the four legs and a seat the material needs the form in order to reach its purpose yes I see from there we need the efficient cause the efficient cause is the external agent which causes the change in the material so it can turn into its desired form so for the chair the efficient cause would be the carpenter the one who gathered the materials visualize the form

and fashion the materials into this form and what is the fourth cause well this is the final cause this is the end the dillos when a certain thing has reached its actuality and it's fulfilling its purpose so for the chair if people can sit on it it has reached its final cause and see very interesting so you your existence can be traced to the four causes your dma would be your material cause the human shape is your formal cause your parents are your efficient cause and you living breathing and existing is your final cause as

a human being hmm Aristotle believed everything in the empirical world including the empirical world itself goes through the four causes for Aristotle the four causes was the way to understand the world it discovers the why in our world it allows us to reach the truth as to why something is in existence and understand its cause using this method of thinking the subjects of science grew exponentially over the years allowing us to discover and understand the way our fascinating world works here's the problem I see if ever thing is changing and relies on the four causes

to come into existence then how did the universe itself come into existence before the universe there was nothing so how could there have been the causes to bring everything about and start the continuous process well Aristotle disagreed that before the universe there was nothing in fact Aristotle did not believe there was a before the universe he believed the universe was eternal Aristotle did not believe the universe came into existence he did not think time and motion comes into existence he saw this as a contradiction how could there be a before if there is no time

so for Aristotle the universe has always existed and was never brought into existence I can understand that but then if the universe was not created and was not brought into existence where does the motion and the change come from Aristotle was asking us to adopt a belief in a universe of eternal change and flux were absolutely everything all organisms are moving to a Delos where would this motion come from this is where Aristotle brings up the prime mover what's that broadly speaking the prime mover would be God it is an immaterial unchanging an eternal being

that is responsible for all the motion and change in the universe so Aristotle believed the prime mover started everything off it was the first cause that started the chain not exactly Aristotle believed the universe was eternal so there was no first cause but rather the prime mover was considered the attractor for Aristotle God does not start the movement off by physically getting involved and giving it a push but rather the prime mover is a being that attracts all the motion in the universe it draws all movement and change like a moth moving towards a bright

light the light causes the moth to move towards it so in a sense every changing being is moving closer to the prime mover and as the prime mover attracts this motion it leads all the entities from their potentiality to their actuality so as trees grow or move or planets orbit this change this motion is just movement towards the prime mover I see so then with the prime mover we can understand the constant and eternal state of flux in the universe now of course Aristotle's idea of God vastly different from the judeo-christian understanding whereas the judeo-christian

belief is very much of a first mover a being that caused the first motion and began the universe as well as a conscious moral being that can intervene in the world Aristotle's prime mover is nothing like this but rather just lights that attracts all movement and change it keeps the universe in this order and it keeps the universe moving but it is not an all-powerful being it cannot intervene in human affairs and quite possibly it wouldn't even have the knowledge of our existence Aristotle argued that such a vast infinite being as the prime mover would

only think about itself and would only know itself I see so when we put the prime mover in place we can see good grounds to adopt Aristotle's theory of causation it is an empirical theory using our own observations and it does not rely too much on the metaphysics of God and trying to prove the nature of God okay but there are still issues with Aristotle's theory of causation what are they firstly let's look at the approach Aristotle is approaching his theory from an empiricist standpoint he is using empirical understanding and the empirical senses to reach

the truth yes the problem is empirical senses differ from person to person we have seen this argument come up a lot in philosophy people perceive the world in different ways the means by which you were discovering the truth is not universal unlike a priori logic apus theory all right knowledge seems to come from a subjective standpoint right so how can we start to try and get universal answers and understand the causes within our world if it can be argued that our starting point is subjective okay certain things may be subjectively perceived but I do not

think we should dismiss all empirical knowledge look at the scientific breakthrough which we've had this is done by perceiving and understanding the empirical world ok fine but I would then ask is it really right to just take the standpoint that everything has a specific purpose or add a loss that it tends to could perhaps things just happen by chance if you look at the strict and organized patterns of change in our world it seems difficult to agree that these are just down to chance well if we take the doll we need an approach then perhaps

we can agree it is down to chance with the theory of evolution and natural selection over billions of years the world has just been left with the organisms that were able to survive grow and adapt to their environment this is not necessarily a perfectly organized planet where everything has a purpose but rather the only things that manage to survive in an infinite universe of randomness so we can say nothing really has a purpose or a direction or Della's billions of things have come in and out of existence for no reason whatsoever we have just managed

to perceive their leftovers that were lucky enough to survive by chance and chance alone interesting and finally I have to disagree with the concept of a prime mover Aristotle was essentially describing God but at the same time he's kind of not I'm having trouble with the idea that the prime mover there being responsible for their continual existence of the universe is a being that cannot intervene powerless being who is also ignorant of our existence or of any existence within the universe how can we reduce the concept of God to such a weak and ignorant being

I think if you're trying to put a good in place the prime mover does not do well in defining it's very well that's all the time we have to now thank you for watching we hope you enjoyed the vibe lets us know what you think did you like Aristotle's theory of causation do you agree with the concept of a prime mover that's us know in the comments below then don't forget to Like share and subscribe take care and we look forward to seeing you all soon