Once a buffalo got into a field and began to ruin it. Suddenly the owner of the field saw it, required the stay, and strike the buffalo. The buffalo ran from the field. Here we see two actions taking place, firstly the owner hitting the buffalo, which we can call as the reason and the next action is the buffalo running from the field, which we can call the result. Therefore, there is a clear romantic relationship between both of these actions or occasions. The term cause gives us the clear and therefore "anything responsible for change, movement, or action, " once we saw in the aforementioned action. There are lots of philosophers who spoke about the cause especially Aristotle. He points out what cause is. Just why there are causes? In order to make us understand He wrote about four important triggers because, whatever he found on the earth he commenced to question 'why'? Therefore, the results of this question is the idea of causality and the condition of change. In such a assignment, I'd like to go comprehensive into Aristotle's theory of four causes and the condition of change. Because in this world the Non- livings and the livings do not continue to be the same; somewhat they change in everything.
As we know, Aristotle is one of the great Greek philosophers. He researched under Plato. He has written many literature on many subjects. He is a father of many subjects like reasoning, political science, etc. Aristotle was convinced about his ideas and thoughts that is why he did not agree with some of the ideas of his expert and even with the other philosophers like Parmenides' arguments. Plato believed in the world of ideas, for him the theory and the proper execution were real. However, For Aristotle the average person things were real, he thought in the wonderful world of simple fact. Since he presumed in the world of reality, he saw on this earth many beings so he called them as substances. Aristotle says, "The compound is a unity of form and matter. Substances go through two types of changes: accidental and radical. " Since he spoke about changes, there was a clash between Parmenides and Aristotle.
The Greek philosopher Parmenides said, "The truth is one and stable, " which means there can't be any change. In other words, "In reality there is no change by any means; all change is mere appearance; because the truth is one, which is unchanging. " Because Parmenides presumed that we now have only two opportunities, they are simply 'being' and 'non-being'. Matching to Parmenides when there is something then only something comes out and if there is nothing how will you expect something? The trouble was that later he said that from being no being comes because He has no notion of potentiality in being. However, Aristotle says, every being has potentiality therefore there is change in everything. Since Aristotle said about the change, he had to bring out the proper quarrels. Therefore, He started out to explain by giving theory of four causes and the challenge of change.
Aristotle commences his arguments by declaring that "If something involves whether it be must be rooted in something. It can't be rooted in nothing at all. But and yes it can't be rooted alone. So that it must be rooted in a potentiality that something has for a range of (contrary, contrary) properties. " What he says is true because nothing can come from nothing alternatively. For example if you produce an apple then only you can trim it and present it to others if we do not have how do we think of providing to others. Likewise, if we want something to come then there needs to be something. A something that is present he phone calls them as element. This substance under moves two types of changes as I described earlier. He telephone calls them as unintentional change. In this kind, a sculptor would go to sculpt a statue from a marble; there he realizes that inside that marble the statue prevails. From this incident, Aristotle discovers the idea of potency. The word potency means the ability or the energy. For instance, the marble has the potency to become statue. Finally, he concludes by stating every being has the potency to change.
He message or calls another change as the significant change. In which an pet animal is inactive and the other creature eats the useless animal here chemical turns to different things which is not similar. Finally, with these occurrences Aristotle comes to summary that the substance undergoes changes. These substances are functioned by four causes. Now why don't we start to see the theory of the four triggers by Aristotle.
The materials cause: material cause handles 'whatness' of the compound. In other words, what an object or matter consists is a materials cause. Every compound or object under goes an alteration, that receives a new form or a fresh look. We are able to take a good example a carpenter makes a stand out of real wood. This we can call as an accidental change. We can take an another example a jack fruit is fallen down and a monkey starts to eat now the jack port fruit is no more a jack fruit rather it is an integral part of that monkey. This kind of change we can call as a substantial change because the compound manages to lose its original form and becomes another thing; this is quite typical in this world because every day the animals, plant life etc die, they become different forms. Therefore, this type of change we can call as a material cause. Personally, i understand materials cause as, in this world whatever that exists has the matter and the proper execution. The thing what it is I'd call it as the material cause. Even when a new thing comes out which new thing has discovered by what hence, it is I would trust Aristotle.
The formal cause: In this cause, the term formal itself provides us the idea of a form. Even as we read in the beginning there is no matter without form no form without subject. Any lumber is a chemical and it is made of subject and the form. For instance a brick, when a man makes the brick by giving the proper shape to it then only it becomes as a brick and subsequently he gets the idea of the brick in his mind therefore he makes the brick. Based on the formal cause, the word 'form' itself offers us the idea, that which prevails should have the proper execution. So similarly, a person has the idea of a brick in his mind's eye and makes the brick. Once the same bricks have established in proper order to build a house it includes called as the formal cause. In case a contractor uses the bricks however he would like the wall won't grow and even if it increases it collapses. Similarly, if the librarian will not arrange the literature in proper order then it will be something else but if the librarian arranges the books in the cupboard then it requires a better look and the shape. It offers called as the formal cause. Finally, I wish to say in simple words that the idea or the imagination that the maker has in his mind, the characteristics of the thing that the maker or the custom gives to a thing can be called as the formal cause.
The Successful cause: the efficient cause is the effort and the work of the designer or the agent, which changes the object. It means how the designer ideas and what exactly are the devices he uses, how much hard he works counted in the effective cause. Therefore the efficient cause starts with the agent or the artist. In other words, "that that the change or the freedom from change first starts, e. g. the adviser is a cause of the action, and the daddy a cause of the kid. " I would like to describe it via an example. I will a lake and collecting some clay and I prepare a beautiful statue. Here my effort and the push, that i used to help make the statue, 's the reason for the reliable cause. In such a example, I have an idea of the statue and since I've an idea, I make the statue. It is because of my effort and effort a new statue involves existence. I'd say that it is an important cause because of this cause; a fresh thing comes to exist.
The last cause: the final cause is an important cause when a new thing is present. Here a question develops why the agent or the developer made this thing including the same story of mine making a container out of clay. I make the container because I needed to keep it in my house to be able to use cooking and to keep drinking water in it. In the same way, a carpenter makes chair to be able to take a seat on the couch. I walk everyday since it is necessary for my health therefore the final cause is the purpose for which the change occurs. Therefore, there is a clear interconnection between each one of these four causes.
These are the four factors behind Aristotle. Later another great Religious philosopher Thomas Aquinas provides yet another cause to these four causes. To create as an 'exemplary' cause. "Exemplary causality is the everyday influence exercised by way of a model or an exemplar on the procedure. " EASILY take the same example of the clay and the statue here, first I have an idea in my own brain therefore I make the statue. This notion in the mind we can call as the exemplary cause. However, it may have the same resemblance of the other notable causes but it deals with the theory. It books the inner intellect.
Aristotle's triggers were mainly on reality but Aquinas's cause is on potentiality and actuality which means on idea and the genuine factor. Since Aristotle also dealt about this, Aquinas gives more importance on idea, which he telephone calls as essence. Since he put into the theory of Aristotle on lifetime and substance, Aristotle's theory took an improved form and received more value than early on.
Finally, Aristotle concludes his theory of four causes by saying there may be cause and result, everything under goes a change. As I mentioned in the beginning Aristotle saw everything that exists and asked why they are in this manner. This made him to determine why everything changes nowadays. Finally, when he finds out the reasons for change he concludes by stating that there must be somebody who is a supreme mover and the reason for a change. Because corresponding to his theory if there is a watch there should be a custom or the Watchmaker, similarly when there's a change in everything there should be somebody who is a reason maker. Aristotle phone calls him as a prime mover.
He also is convinced that the primary mover is the final cause and he is unchangeable, because he has no form. For Aristotle the perfect mover is divine. After long arguments and disagreements with other philosophers Aristotle says, in the universe everything changes. The whole universe will depend on the primary mover and he is cause for all the changes, which take place. He is the ultimate cause or the primary mover. Aristotle message or calls him as a supreme being or the supreme mover but the great Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas phone calls him as a God. I too trust Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle because both believe in the divinity. Since I believe easily have something then must be a creator of this so when I say this universe is present it is sure that the creator of the universe prevails. I also agree that in this world everything changes. God is the primary mover.
I would conclude by saying that the four causes of Aristotle and the other one cause by Thomas Aquinas are the main reasons, which impacts an thing. The five triggers play an important role in exactly what is out there in the world. All these causes linked to each other. Each and exactly what exists on this universe has an objective that is why all the causes describe to us the lifetime of the beings. These beings go through a change. God is the best change maker or the starter of all the causes.