Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
19 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Alterations vs Generations. What is a general description of an alteration? |
An alteration is the change of an accidental property of a substance. This is what is discussed in the previous cards. |
|
|
Alterations vs Generations. What is a general description of a generation? |
A generation is an unqualified coming to be. |
|
|
Aristotle's three ingredients of change. 1. A subject 2. A form (a single contrary) 3. A privation of that form (a second contrary) What do these ingredients give us? What are the three stages of change? |
1. An initial object (The unmusical man) 2. A persisting object. (The man) 3. A resultant object. (The musical man) |
|
|
Thinking of Generation. What is the problem for this account of change when it is applied to generation? (Consider Aristotle's account of substance in the categories. Does it still make sense for generation?) |
A problem for Aristotle - primary being. In the categories, Aristotle said particular substances were primary beings. In order for this account of change to make sense for generation, (1) There must be a persisting object. (2) This persisting object cannot be the same as the resultant object. (Parmenides) (3) Therefore there must be something more primary then the particular substance. |
|
|
Is substance composite or not? |
Substance must be composite (made of different parts) in order for this account of change to make sense.
|
|
|
What is substance composed of? |
Substance is composed of matter and form. This seems like a slight revision of the schema but it makes sense for the sentence: The bronze becomes a statue. In the end we have a statue made of bronze. The bronze is the matter and the form is the shape (statue) or the lack thereof. |
|
|
Substance's two parts: (1) Matter (2) Form Which one is the substratum? |
Matter is the substratum of substance and, hence, the system. Form is what is gained or lost, created or destroyed. |
|
|
Recap: In the Categories, ... were the Primary and the only one's that could admit contraries. But in the Physics, The ... of which substance is composed is also able to admit contraries. |
Substances were the Primary and the only one's that could admit contraries. The matter of which substance is composed is also able to admit contraries. |
|
|
The Four Causes. What are the four causes? x is a cause if.... |
(1) x is what y is [made] out of. (Material) (2) x is what it is to be y. (Formal) (3) x is what produces y. (Efficient) (4) x is what y is for. (Final) |
|
|
In modern thinking we have only one definition of 'cause.' Which of the four causes do we still use? |
(3) x is what produces y. (Efficient) This is cause and effect. |
|
|
The four causes in action. Using the example of a table, what are a table's four causes? |
(1) The table's material cause - The table is made of (wood). (2) The table's formal cause - A flat surface raised from the ground is what it is to be a table. (3) The table's efficient cause - The table is made by (the carpenter). (4) The table's final cause - The table is used for (sitting at), (eating at), (writing at) etc... |
|
|
Aristotle held that the four causes could be found in nature as well. Why does this present a problem? Which cause is the most problematic for a natural substance? |
The final cause (4) is seen as the most problematic. It is easy to see the final cause of a substance such as a table because the final cause is whatever the creator created it for. It is not easy to see what the final cause of a dog is (unless one believes in a creator like God). |
|
|
Does Aristotle mean that the final cause of an animal is something like, The final cause of a dog is to be a pet. The final cause of an ox is to pull a plow. |
No, Aristotle does not give anthropological purposes to natural substances. |
|
|
Does Aristotle mean that nature is an art with the proposed artisan being God? This would make God the efficient cause of nature and natural substances. |
No, Aristotle rejects the idea of a cosmic creator who fashions the world after the forms (a platonic idea). |
|
|
So, the final cause in nature is not a plan, a purpose or an intention. What then does Aristotle mean by final causes in nature? |
It is whatever lies at the end of a regular series of developmental changes that a typical specimen of that substance would undergo. |
|
|
That means that the final cause of a tiger is... |
to be a tiger. Where F is a biological kind: The final cause (telos) of an F is what embryonic, immature, or developing Fs are all tending to grow into. |
|
|
Implicit in this idea. Does a final cause require deliberation? |
No, in nature final causes need no deliberation like they would in a human creation. |
|
|
What is Aristotle's rationale for this account of final causes in nature? |
Aristotle sees nature as being opposed to chance or random change: it has a pattern and this pattern cannot originate in randomness. Therefore it naturally follows that the point of nature is to exist through random change. |
|
|
Taking the example of a tree, what are the four causes of a tree? |
(1) The material cause - The tree is made out of wood (and leaves) (2) The formal cause - A tree is what it is to be a tree. (3) The efficient cause - A tree is made by a tree. (4) The final cause - The final cause of a tree is to be a tree. Note: The formal, efficient and final causes are all the same in nature. |
