aristotelian teleology is outdated

what are the key principles of aristotles - prime mover, 4 causes, empiricsm + understanding change

  • certian aspects may be outdated and we cannot take literally for example the prime mover but the baseline of his theory that focuses on emprisicsm is useful as it gets us to understand on a deeper level the world around us and that change exists.

ARGUMENT → the foundations of aristotelian telelogy is not oudated as empirisicsm is a fundemental part of human life and something that we need to understand on a deeper level, which artistotles theory allows for us to do.

PARA 1 → EMPRISCSM

  • aristotles not oudated because his theory is focused on emprisicsm, which is something that we all contuine to have experience of

  • we are right to rely on our senses because they keep us alive and are fudemental to our existance - therefore it gives us a better understanding of realitly

  • support → hume + the unicorn - how our experience shape our perceptions of the world

  • COUNTER → outdated because we need to focus on rationalitly instead - the senses can often decieve us so we end up having different opinons about what is actually good, this is because reason is not being used well. if we can escape our senses we can understand that there is more to being good than just fufling a purpose - plato has highlighted this before and argues that we need to act like philisophers - descartes highlights this with the example of the wax. there also seems to be innate knowledge of concepts - plato’s form of the good

  • RESPONSE → however this doesnt nessecairly make aristotles theory outdated or meaningless, if anything he pressents a more scienetific approach towards understanding realitly by focusing on what we can empirically find out

  • OVERALL → emprical foundations of aristotles telelogy and theories are not outdated by rather are more assimilated within our current interpretations in the 21st century of realitly from a more emprical and sciencetific stand point

PARA 2 → PRIME MOVER

  • aristotles prime mover can be seen as the blue print for how many religions understand the nature of God to be, therefore it is not outdated and rather an intergral part of faith and society

  • creates a being that is responsible from the world, yet it does not know us, it is responsible for change within the world and helps to give an explanation as to why things are moving from potentiality to actualalitly

  • COUNTER → newton is critical of the thought process that aristotle uses, newtons second law diminishes it → This means that Aristotle’s inference that the constant motion in the universe must be maintained by something like a prime mover is false. Aristotle only believed in emprical observation rather than experiment, which arguably now has limited place in the world

  • RESPONSE → Newton only disproved Aristotle’s claims about reality, he did not disprove Aristotle’s a posteriori approach to understanding reality, in fact Newton used a developed form of that himself. so aristotles foundational approach of empiriscsm is not outdated today because it has been accepted by others, whilst his theory of the prime mover may be incorrect this methodology however stands up.

  • OVERALL → The theory of the prime mover itself may be outdated, but still should acknowledge the signifcance of the methodology that aristotle uses here, since it has created a foundation towards both religious monothestic thought and the processes of science that we currently use

PARA 3 → 4 CAUSES

  • the basis of aristotles empirical theory is applicable to life and science enquiry because we rely on senses observation and experience

  • for example - a cat MFEF, can easily deduce this and fits with the may in which we catagorize things in life

  • COUNTER → parts are still indate such as the mateiral and effiecent cause, but final cause is more abstract and has been subject to debate through more modern interpreations to philisophy. extentialists and satre critque the idea of there being a purpose behind something (philisophical developments) + francis bacon argues that purpose ultimately is an unsciencetific conecpt (scienetific developmentments)

  • RESPONSE → mcgrath, science can explain the what and not the why, aristotle on the other hand is attempting to explain the why behind the things that we emprically experience. Satre takes an emprical approach towards his philisophical reflections on life, he comes to a different conclusion but he still uses a very similar method of oberserving the world and its function. thus it is not oudated because aristotle is trying to broaden our thinking and consider more deeply from an emprical level

  • OVERALL → 4 causes are a baseline of how we divide up things within the world, - the first three are not outdated because they are ways in which we catagorize them - even if we do not agree with the 4th cause of purpose, we can still take artistotles meaning and method into pressent day consideration, since his theory urges us to take a deep and emprical look at the things around us.