Aristotle

Aristotle’s belief in Dualism

He did not believe in dualism - there is no World of Forms, just our physical reality.

Aetion

1. Aristotle did not believe everything had a perfect version (like in the World of Forms), but rather everything has an aetion (cause).

2. This aetion was Aristotle’s Four Causes.

Aristotle’s Four Causes

1. Every object is in either potentiality or actuality, and for it to get to actuality it has to undergo Aristotle’s Four Causes.

2. All objects in this world have Aristotle’s Four Causes.

(1) Material Cause - What the object is made of.

(2) Formal Cause - Shape the object takes.

(3) Efficient Cause - Activity that makes or creates the object.

(4) Final Cause - Its purpose for existing.

Strengths of the Four Causes

1. They are all based on Aristotle’s observations of the natural world, meaning they are all observable, and can be applied to virtually any object.

2. They are compatible with science - Aristotle was a materialist and empiricist, so is not employing some supernatural belief to justify them, but rather using natural and observable sciences.

3. It gives multiple explanations for something’s cause as opposed to just explaining it with ‘G-d’, refutes the ‘G-d of the gaps’ argument.

4. The anomalies don’t disprove it, exceptions prove the rule.

Weaknesses of the Four Causes

1. It relies too much on experience, which changes from person-to-person, so people may not have a shared cause as part of the Four Causes.

2. Aristotle did not know that the material world is the source of all knowledge, some may turn to faith or religion or knowledge.

3. There are some anomalies as some things appear to have no final cause e.g. the universe.

4. Emotions have no material or formal cause and their efficient and final cause are questionable as well.

5. Leads to an infinite regression of efficient causes.

6. Fallacy of composition: if something is true for one thing, it doesn’t make it true for the whole group - just because one thing works with the Four Causes doesn’t mean the everything will.

7. Existentialism: Bertrand Russel said “The universe is a brute fact” - there is no final cause.

8. Not everything is used for its purpose e.g. I could use chopsticks to poke someone in a fight. What is the final cause of an object? How do we know?

Aritstotle’s Prime Mover

1. A chain of cause and effect cannot go on forever - infinite regression.

2. Something must have started off this chain, without being caused by something itself.

3. This would be an uncaused cause or a ‘Prime Mover’.

4. It must exist outside the universe, outside time and space.

Strengths of Prime Mover

1. Can be applied to virtually any object in the universe.

2. It is a deistic being so it does not interact with the world, meaning it does not cause evil and suffering, so there is no problem of evil.

3. It is logical - there must be a start-point in the universe.

Criticisms of Aristotle’s Prime Mover

1. One must accept that infinite regression cannot exist, but many believe there was no beginning.

2. It cannot exist outside of time as it caused the world, and that is an action and all actions are temporal (take place in time).

3. Not all things have a cause, some things simply adhere to the fundamental laws of physics, e.g. radioactive decay happens because of the way the universe works, Schrödinger’s cat dies due to the atomic decay of the atom, not a chain of reactions.

Maimonidean Criticism of Prime Mover and Counter-Argument

Criticism:

The Guide to the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter 25:"

“But the assumption of the existence of one simple substance [i.e., the Prime Mover] which is separate from the body, does not lead to the establishment of the Law and the principles of Religion; the multitude are not to be instructed”

He is saying that the Prime Mover does not lead to religious and moral principles so is not a good idea.

Counter:

He is not disagreeing with the logic as much as arguing with the consequences as it does not fit his worldview - confirmation bias.

Differences between the Prime Mover and the Form of Good.

Prime Mover:

1. Uncaused Causer.

2. No connection to the physical world.

Form of Good:

1. Exists in the World of Forms.

2. Participates in the World of Appearances.

Similarities between the Prime Mover and the Form of Good.

1. Both don’t exist.

2. Both are an idea of G-d.

3. Both are eternal.

4. Both are incorporeal.

Aristotle’s Prime Mover is a BETTER than Plato’s Form of Good at explaining G-d

1. Explains the change in the world - the domino effect.

2. Plato does not clearly explain how the Form is Good participates in the World of Appearances.

Plato’s Form of Good is a BETTER than Aristotle’s Prime Mover at explaining G-d

1. it explains change in the World of Appearances - change is caused by distortion.

2. The Prime Mover cannot be observed by our senses.

3. The Form of Good explains why we recognise things - the soul remembers it.

How does Maimonides support the Prime Mover?

יְסוֹד הַיְסוֹדוֹת וְעַמּוּד הַחָכְמוֹת לֵידַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם מָצוּי רִאשׁוֹן. וְהוּא מַמְצִיא כָּל נִמְצָא. וְכָל הַנִּמְצָאִים מִשָּׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ וּמַה שֶּׁבֵּינֵיהֶם לֹא נִמְצְאוּ אֶלָּא מֵאֲמִתַּת הִמָּצְאוֹ:

The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth of His being.

Hilkhot Yesodei haTora