杨洋穿浴袍与萌宠拼可爱 刘亦菲穿风衣展超强气场

Question

Aristotle typically uses human artifacts, like a bronze statue as he does in Physics ii 3, as examples to explain his doctrine of the four causes.

Since a written work is also a human artifact, I wonder if Aristotle’s fourfold causality can be applied to a philosophical work or idea. For instance, suppose we’re analyzing the work of an idealist philosopher who proposes a particular idea, X, within the framework of idealism.

Could we analyze the causes of this idea as follows?

1. Material: The intellectual or cultural environment—perhaps a prevailing physicalist or reductionist context.

2. Efficient: The author himself, as well as previous thinkers in the idealist tradition (e.g., Berkeley), who set in motion the development of this idea.

3. Formal: The essence or conceptual definition of idea X.

4. Final: The goal of refuting materialism or advancing an idealist philosophy.

I think this model makes sense, but I’m unsure if this is a legitimate application of Aristotle’s doctrine or an overextension of it.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Obviously, we have to start from Aristotle's paradigmatic example regarding the production of an artifact like a bronze statue.

The main issue is that an artifact is not exactly what we think at when we speak of "authorial work".

Maybe we can start from The Definition of Art stating some facts:

(i) entities (artifacts or performances) intentionally endowed by their makers with a significant degree of aesthetic interest, often greatly surpassing that of most everyday objects, first appeared hundreds of thousands of years ago and exist in virtually every known human culture; (ii) such entities are partially comprehensible to cultural outsiders – they are neither opaque nor completely transparent".

Thus, material can be everything, also something "immaterial", like a performance.

Much more difficult is the formal cause, that is which is given in reply to the question “"What is it?” It must be something "endowed with a significant degree of aesthetic interest."

If we consider - as per OP question - a "philosophical work", we must consider it as something "endowed with a significant degree of philosophical interest", that is quite circular.

The final cause is simpler, both for art and philosophy: to communicate something (an idea?) at least "partially comprehensible" (that is not so trivial, wrt contemporary art and philosophy) to an intended audience.

IMO the idealist example is not relevant. A philosopher proposes an idea using books and lectures that are artifacts and not "pure spirit". Thus, also in this scenario, the goal is to communicate.

Answer 2

I'm not well-versed in Aristotle, but I can take a shot at it! First off: Did you mean to focus on the content of the written work, or the written work itself?

Let's consider an informative book. Did you mean to focus on the book's information, or the book itself? I'm not sure what Aristotle might say about the book's information.

I'd venture that Aristotle might say this much about the book itself:

• Efficient Causes: the author, book binder, etc.
• Formal Cause: the essence or form of the book
• Material Causes: paper, ink, etc.
• Final Cause: to disseminate the book's information

This list seems to basically match yours! The main difference is in the Material Causes.

In general, I roughly understand Aristotle's four causes like so:

• x's efficient cause = what makes x be
• x's formal cause = what makes x be what it is
• x's material cause = what makes up x
• x's final cause = what makes up x's purpose

I hope that helps at least a little!