Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Aristotle-S-Four-Causes 👈

1. University of Patras
ARISTOTLE'S FOUR CAUSES
Course of Aristotle's Epistemology and Metaphysics ,
Academic Year 2013 – 14 (Prof. Melina G. Mouzala).
Giulio Merlo
email: giuliomerlo1988@gmail.com
0. Abstract
In this little paper I will be illustrating a brief summarize of Aristotle’s Philosophy, focusing especially on the topic
of the Four Causes Theory. I will start giving a view on what Aristotle says on causes in general in his book of
Metaphysics, then proceeding illustrating the Four Causes Theory, the Aristotelian concept of hylomorphism, the
difference between Potentiality and Actuality, what is according to Aristotle the first cause, namely, the Unmoved
Mover, the teleology rooted inside the the whole Aristotelian Philosophy according to which everything is constructed to
achieve a precise end, and finally but not less important, the concept of Substance.
1. The Aristotle's Metaphysics
In the framework of his thought, Aristotle recognized a multiple variety of sciences, which are
divided and organized hierarchically. He indeed considered as firsts the Theoretical Sciences,
which regarded purely contemplative activities; like Metaphysics, Physics and Mathematics. As
seconds, the Practical Sciences, like Ethics and Politics and as thirds the so called Productive
Sciences, namely the Arts.
However, within this paper, I will focus mostly just on Metaphysics and in particular, on the so
called Four Causes Theory. Let's start firstly talking about what is Metaphysics and what does
Aristotle meant to achieve through it.
The Aristotelian Metaphysics, Aristotle said, is that science which deals with realities lying
above the physic ones, therefore, opposing to Physics. The aims of Metaphysics are four: 1)
1

2. Investigating on the first causes and the first or supreme principles; 2) Investigating the being as
being; 3) investigating the concept of substance and finally 4) investigating God and the
supersensible substance. Those are the reasons why Aristotle called Metaphysics First Philosophy.
We have to say therefore that the research of God is not seen just as a while in the framework of the
metaphysical inquiry, but is considered as the essential aim.
Metaphysics is considered by Aristotle as the most important one between the other two
sciences, that are the practical and the productive ones. This is because, practising Metaphysics a
man realizes the contemplative life. Practising Metaphysics a man approaches God not just because
doing that he knows him, but also, because he does the same thing that God does, that is thinking,
the activity of the though; since as we will see later, God is, according to Aristotle pure thought.
2. The Four Causes Theory
Since, as Aristotle Said, Metaphysics consist in the research of the first causes, he developed a
theory in order to explain which these causes are.
These causes are four and they are the followings: 1) material cause, 2) formal cause, 3)
efficient cause and 4) final cause.
“The material cause (is) that one from which something is generated and out of which it is
made, e.g. the bronze of a statue The formal cause (is) the structure which the matter realizes and in
terms of which it comes to be something determinate, e.g., the shape of the president, in virtue of
which this quantity of bronze is said to be a statue of a president. The efficient cause (is) the agent
responsible for a quantity of matter's coming to be informed, e.g. the sculptor who shaped the
quantity if bronze into its current shape, the shape of the president. (Finally) the final cause (consist
in) the purpose or the goal of the compound of form and matter, e.g. the statue was created for the
purpose of honoring the president”.1
Furthermore, It's important to notice that, as Aristotle claims in
Physics ii 3, all this four causes are necessary and sufficient for adequacy in explanation; even
though, referring to necessity, Aristotle himself said, not every phenomena admit all four causes;
indeed, sometimes, it could be the result of coincidences; whereas for claiming the sufficiency, he
challenges his reader to find a fifth cause.2
The term “cause” is not properly correct, in fact, has generated some discussions. The original
1 Cit.: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/#FouCauAccExpAde
2 Cfr.: Aristotle, Physics, ii, 3
2

3. term that Aristotle used was indeed aitia, but in English was translated as explanation or simply
cause; but if we notice, the four causes of Aristotle are not causes but rather becauses since they try
to give answers to questions referring indeed to the four causes. The only one cause that we can
consider as cause, is indeed the efficient cause, as the one which creates something.
“Efficient causation was connected with Aristotelian physics, which recognized the four
elements (earth, air, fire, water), and added the fifth element (aether). Water and earth by their
intrinsic property gravitas or heaviness intrinsically fall toward, whereas air and fire by their
intrinsic property levitas or lightness intrinsically rise away from, Earth's center—the motionless
center of the universe—in a straight line while accelerating during the substance's approach to its
natural place ”.3
A thing is called a cause in one way if it is a constituent from which something comes to be (for example, bronze of
the statue, silver of the goblet, and their genera); in another way if it is the form and pattern, that is, the formula of
its essence, and the genera of this (for example, 2:1, and in general number, of the octave), and the parts
present in the account; again, if it is the source of the first principle of change or rest (for example, the man who
deliberates is a cause, and the father of the child, and in general the maker of what is being made and the changer of
what is changing); again, if it is a goal – that is, that for the sake of which (for example, health of walking – Why is
he walking? – we say: ‘In order to be healthy’, and in so saying we think we have stated the cause); and also
those things which, when something else has initiated a change, stand between the changer and the goal – for
example, slimming or purging or drugs or instruments of health; for all these are for the sake of the goal, and they
differ from one another in being some instruments and others actions. 4
In the Aristotle's view, looking for causes of things is like looking for the becauses of things,
that is, looking for what is the causes of something else, or in other words, trying to understand why
a determinate X cause is responsible for creating a Y effect.
Aristotle tries to understand the because of things or why facts presents in the way through
which the show to us. For instance, says Aristotle, why when there is a thunder, in the same time get
produces a sound in the clouds? Why bricks and timber can construct a house? In sum, Aristotle
identifies the problem trying to explain the because of things in a relation of subject-predicate, and
trying to understand why and in which way one thing is connected or belongs to another one. He
will try to answer this question, first of all, appealing to the concepts of matter and form.
Cause, to Aristotle, is what we need in order to explain the events. In order to explain, for
instance, why things are in a certain state, Aristotle refers to a very stiff reasoning chain. Stiff,
3 Cit.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
4 Aristotle, Phys, II 3, 194b23–195a3.
3

4. which is often, a necessary feature for proceeding to the valid conclusion, because often, this stiff
form exhibits the nature of the casual connections in a more efficient and clear way. Therefore, we
can notice how much the logic form, within the Aristotelian Philosophy and in particular within the
explanation of causes, is enormously present just for the very fundamental role which covers.
Aristotle names the first type of cause, that is, the one from which everything comes to be,
cause as matter, whereas those who subsequently commented on Aristotle, name it matter cause.
For instance, bronze is the cause as matter of a statue because owns determinate features those
belong just to bronze and those therefore let us to identify bronze as itself; that is, brown, heavy,
malleable, covered with verdigris and so on. Every time we say that something is made of bronze,
we recognize in that determinate object the matter which is composed, namely, its so called material
cause; we identify the matter from which it is from.
The one that Aristotle calls formal cause identifies basically either with the what is and with the
why questions. The formal cause is the form or the pattern characterizing an event or one thing. For
instance, Aristotle for explaining what is an eclipse, says that is nothing but privation of light from
the moon because of Earth's obscuring it. When we ask why do eclipses happen, Aristotle replies in
the same way as upon, that is, an eclipse happens because Moon is obscured by Earth. In this case,
“to be obscured by Earth” is the key locution explaining us why eclipses happen; this is the form or
essence of an eclipse, or simply what makes an eclipse an eclipse.
The most of modern readers thus, is more comfortable talking about causes whenever they are
before the third cause, called efficient cause or moving cause, because lays on the concept of
pushing or pulling, like for instance, whenever we imagine a ball hitting another one, when we do
assist or play billiard. Aristotle indicates that the efficient cause, unlike the material one, acts every
time separately from the object upon which it acts. For instance, the father who generates the son or
the artisan who produces a statue are moving cause as agents those give life, in the case of one
person, and a form in the case of a statue.
Unlike the material and the formal cause those are always strictly connected; like the statue is
always connected with bronze and a human being is always connected with the matter which is
constitute, namely flesh, nerves, bones and so on. The cause always precede the effect, therefore it
always subsists separately from the resulting object.
Anyway, Aristotle doesn't treat every time the efficient cause as separate or different from the
material cause. In fact, according to him, efficient causes not every time do precede their effects,
usually, indeed, cause and effect are considered, Aristotle says, as contemporaries. He let notice
indeed, that, for instance, the cause-effect relation subsisting between father and son, is not to be
considered as two separate events, but rather to be framed within a relation of simultaneity,
4

5. argumenting that “ .[...]The child is human because the child has a human father and children with
human fathers are human ”.5
With this argument Aristotle wants to show us that the cause doesn't
precede the effect, since is not given the case in which before the child has a father and afterwards
becomes human, but rather, in the same time he has a father who generates him, becomes human.
When Aristotle refers to the fourth type of cause he talks about that for the good of which,
achievement or end.
In order to explain this concept Aristotle refers to the locution in order to. For instance,
whenever we say «I am going for a walk in order to be in health». Thus, this happens even if most
of the time the Aristotle's final cause doesn't correspond with the because one do that determinate
action. Moreover, it seems to be appropriate just for a limited number of assertions or cases; that is
the ones related to the human intentionally actions. Furthermore, if we notice, actions accomplished
in order to reach an achievement seem to be refinded in a vicious circle, since health or obtaining
health presents initially as an achievement to reach that causes the walk; subsequently however,
turns in effect, as the walk produces health. Lastly, an end, a scope, can exist even if is not reached;
it can remains just an hypothetical project based for example upon a kind of propositional
knowledge resulting from induction: everyone knows that walking is good for health, but he can
avoid to put into practice this kind of knowledge, without therefore enjoying the benefits those can
derive from. Aristotle himself recognizes the oddity of this feature, anyhow, beyond this particular
characteristic, that would seem to represent a little but actually not an outstanding problem,
Aristotle himself let notice that the final cause can't be said appropriate in relation with an
intentional behaviour, but on the contrary, we can speak of it especially in relation with the world of
nature, the world of animals and the world of vegetables.
Ultimately, we can say that Aristotle frames the final cause as something or some particular
feature subsisting in order to reach an aim, which represents a benefit, therefore for its own good: I
walk in order to be in health; houses has a roof for protecting us from severe weather; ducks have
webbed feet for swimming better and so on.
In conclusion, going towards the end of this paragraph, Aristotle, in relation with the theme of
causes and in general of the cause-effect relation, speaks of events resulting from the case or by
chance. Referring to those, claims that unfortunately doesn't exist any scientific explanation;
however, Aristotle doesn't admit that even such phenomena aren't result of events connected by a
cause-effect relation. Every event that happens can be explained by a cause-effect relation but
science is not every time able to explain it. For instance, everyone knows that normally every man's
hair becomes grey. If Socrates hair doesn't become grey, we can explain it just limitating ourselves
5 Aristotle, Prior Analytics II 11, 94a36–b2.
5

6. saying that the Socrates one has a natural predisposition in not becoming grey, but we cannot claim
scientific explanations.
3. The concept of Hylomorphism
A very central and important role assumes, referring to the Four Causes Theory, is the concept
of hylomorphism.
The definition given by Aristotle of hylomorphism is the one according to which ordinary
objects are composites of matter and form; indeed, this word is the compounding of two words:
hulê (matter) and morphê (form). Therefore, what Aristotle wants to claim, is that every object in
nature comprises two distinct metaphysical elements, one formal and one material. The need of
Aristotle in developing this concept, was born in order to face the change in things, yet faced in the
past by Parmenides and Zeno, to explain how change is possible. According to him, the change in
things is possible thanks to two factors; that are, when we are in presence of a change of any sort,
happens simply that something is gained and something is lost. “.[...] when Socrates goes to the
beach and comes away sun-tanned, something continue to exist, namely Socrates, even while
something is lost, his pallor, and something else is gained, his tan.”6
In this case, the person Socrates
remains gaining something more than before: a qualitative change.
3.1. The change
Unlike the Plato concept of form, which exists eternally and remains every time the same,
Aristotle's substances are more finite and temporary objects, those undergo to a variety of
alterations. Within the Aristotelian view there are four kind of change; everything can suffer
changes 1) in relation with the substance, 2) with the quality, 3) with the quantity, and 4) with the
place.
The change in relation with the substance addresses towards two direction; the first regards the
substance as it comes to be; the second regards it when ceases to exist or as Aristotle precisely says,
6 Cit.: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/#Hyl
6

7. when it goes out the frame of existence. Basically, therefore, the substance change identifies itself
with the concept of generation and destruction. These are the only two moments in those the
substance proceeds towards a change according to Aristotle. These kind of changes happen for
instance, when a living being born and then die or when an object is created and after a period of
time is smashed, like a house is smashed down with bulldozers when the government has to build a
highway.
Regarding the change about quality, it's called alteration; we can talk about it for instance about
a wax candle that's being consuming, a sun tanned person after has gone to the beach, or a the dry
ground becoming mud after the rain. These are all kind of changes about quality, as related to
qualitative states of an object.
The change about quantity instead, regards the growth and the diminution in relation with
objects or items whenever we generally notice they acquire or lose, in terms of quantity, a
determinate feature, for instance, whenever a human being acquires or lose body weight.
Finally, the change regarding the place is about the movement. In the fist book of Physics,
Aristotle argumented that every change goes across three levels: 1) the initial state from which
every object's change take place, 2) the state to which the change must arrive, and 3) the item or
object remaining after the change has taken place. For instance, in the case of a statue, before
having a statue we have just the bronze which the artisan is supposed to work on, that is the the fist
level, the initial state from which the artisan starts in order to create a statue. Secondly, the artisan
has an aim to reach, a draw, a pattern inside his mind of a finished and shaped statue, which is
indeed the final state which the change must arrive. Finally, after the artisan has finished his work,
we have a shaped statue created; but it is no more just the bronze we had at the beginning. At this
point we have the bronze that is which Aristotle says is that remains after the change, but with a
new shape.
The substance, that according to Aristotle is subject to change, is divided into two parts, namely
matter and form. However these are not physical entities those upon we can interfere on, even
though we can't imagine objects without thinking to them as tangible items. They are for Aristotle
something beyond the sphere of immanence. What is therefore the change for Aristotle? Is nothing
but the so called transition from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality. “According to
Aristotle, actuality is prior to potentiality, in that potentiality can only occur if there is some actually
existing thing which is capable of becoming another thing. There must be an actual potentiality for
an event to occur if its potentiality is to become an actuality”7
.
The change, is, according to Aristotle, acting potentiality, therefore we can say that the change
7 Cit.: http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html
7

8. identifies with the actuality which a change could assume. This is the definition of something that is
able to proceed towards a change.
3.2. Potentiality and actuality
Potentially and actuality are two concepts strictly connected with matter and form. Potentially is
strictly connected with matter because it identifies as able to assume or to receive form; for
instance, bronze is potentially a statue, because it is able to receive and to assume the form of the
statue. The form, differently, configures as actuation of that particular capacity.
However, although potentially and actuality are complementary, Aristotle claim that actuality
has priority and superiority upon potentiality because the second is always in function of actuality;
is potentiality that serves actuality.
As anyone can notice, potentiality and actuality are two circular concepts, that is, they are in a
relation of circularity. But it's not a problem, because, as said before, this is the fundamental base in
order to explain movement and change in things; is a natural process.
4. The Aristotelian Teleology
Even though this is the most feature within the framework of the Four Causes Theory, Aristotle
doesn't defend very much the final cause. The reason, basically are the followings. First of all,
Aristotle said, “It's natural and easy for us to recognize final causal activity in the products of
human craft”8
, like computers, can openers and in general, all the devices those are artificial
products or items from human activity or artisanship; because it's evident that the end of those items
are given by the artisan who constructed them himself. Furthermore, the end of items it's already
explained inside their own nature; for instance, teeth are for tearing and chewing food and kidneys
are for purifying blood.
In Physics, Aristotle said that nature acts for something meaning that the parts of natural
organisms develop for the good ends they serve. Therefore, the Aristotle's view of teleology is, that
in nature everything or almost everything except for something explainable just as result of
8 Cit.: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/#AriTel
8

9. casuality or coincidence, develop because of its own good, namely its end.
Aristotle shows what he means with his teleological vision of nature in the following passage of
his work Parts of Animals:
We see more than one kind of cause concerned with natural generation – namely that for the sake of which, and
also the source of the principle of change. Thus we must determinewhich of these comes first and which second. It
seems that the first is the one we call ‘for the sake of something’; for this is the account of the thing, and the
account is a principle in the same way both in the products of skill and in those of nature. For, either by thought
or by perception, the doctor determines on health and the builder on a house; and then they give accounts and
causes of everything they do, and explain why it should be done in this way. Now that for the sake of which, or the
good, is more prevalent in the works of nature than in those of skill .9
The final causes verifies not only within the frame of the human skills, but also in general,
within the frame of nature, in fact, to explain the natural phenomena, within the Aristotelian view ,
we appeal to the concept according to which something happen for the sake of something. This is to
explain that, if, for instance, ducks have webbed feet is for being able to swim better, and this is
good for them because it goes to their advantage, as they use to pass the most part of their life inside
water and swimming.
The word teleology it's from Greek telos and it is the term through which Aristotle indicates a
goal to reach; therefore a teleological explanation is a kind of explanation appealing to goals and
final causes. For instance, the aim of the leaves is to give shelter to the fruits, the aim of teeth is to
be able to chew and tear the food, and the aim of hairs for a bear is to protect it from cold, hot or in
general the severe weather.
Often, the final causes, do contrast with the concept of necessity and in particular with the limits
imposed by the material nature of animals or from the parts of animals.
Aristotle explains that nature never does nothing in vane. This doesn't mean that what we see
existing in nature must exist by necessity, but that everything existing in nature, all the features of
objects, do exist because they bring benefits for the good of the objects which they are part of.
9 Aristotle, Parts of animals, I 1, 639b12–21 .
9

10. 5. The Substance
This is the central and most important problem in the framework of the Aristotelian
Metaphysics. This problem had been already faced by Aristotle’s predecessors and the out coming
results were heading towards different directions. Some of them claimed that the only substance
was the sensible one. Whereas Plato, differently, identified as the only substance, the supersensible
items.
Starting from these premises, Aristotle tried to face as well this very hard problem. The point, is
to determinate which substances exist. But, before proceeding in the development of this argument,
first of all, Aristotle had to solve the problem what is in general the substance? What is precisely
the definition of substance? To conduct this investigation, he starts from the sensible substances, as
anyone can contest their existence unlike the supersensible ones; like Aristotle claims in his
Metaphysics:
Everyone admits that some substances of sensible things are substances; therefore we should develop our research
starting from these ones. In fact is very useful to proceed little by little towards which is more knowable. Actually,
everyone acquires knowledge through this way: proceeding from the things those are less naturally knowable [=
sensible things] to those ones more naturally knowable [= intelligible things].10
The conclusion of Aristotle is that with substance we can mean in different portions, either
matter, form and the compose (matter + form together); but let's proceed with order.
Substance is form, because it is the essence or the intimate nature of things; that is what makes
things what they are. For instance, the form or essence of a man is the one which makes him a man,
namely the fact to be a rational living being . But without matter a form couldn't give shape to any
being or item; therefore, it must be considered substance the matter as well or at least, in these
terms. In fact, for instance, if a soul (the human form according to Aristotle) didn't give form to
some kind of matter, the human being couldn't exist. Therefore, according to this argumentation, the
form is in different portion, the matter, the form and hence, the compose.
10 Cit.: Aristotle, Metaphysics, Z 3, 1029a 33 and followings.
10

11. 6. The unmoved mover
6.1. The supersensible substance
Aristotle is convinced that not only the sensible matter exist but also the supersensible one; and,
in order to demonstrate it, he proceeds as follows.
If all the substances were incorruptible, then, didn't exist anything incorruptible. But, if it was
like that, time and movement couldn't exist, since the are incorruptible. Time is neither corruptible
nor was generated: indeed, we cannot talk about generation referring to time, because something
generated is something born before a determined period of time. In the same way we cannot say that
time is finite; because something finite is something supposed to end his existence after (again) a
determinate period of time. Therefore, Aristotle concludes, time is incorruptible and eternal.
The same, Aristotle claims, we have to say about movement; because it is nothing else but an
expression of time, since time is measured by movement; therefore, like time, movement is eternal
as well.
At this point, arise a very important question to which Aristotle has to give an answer: what is
the condition according to which does exist an eternal time and movement? Aristotle replies: only if
does exist a first principle from which they derive.
The first principle, Aristotle says, must be eternal and unmovable: eternal because if the effect
it's eternal, even its cause must be, logically, eternal; and unmovable, because only something
unmovable must be the absolute cause of something movable.
Everything in nature, is moved by something else; but it would be impossible and not logical
thinking about a regression in this sense without an end. Therefore, it must be a sort of first
principle unmovable, from which the Earth's movement and every objects' movement in general,
were generated.
Finally, this First Principle must be pure act, free of potentiality; if indeed, it had potentiality,
then, it could even not move in act. But it would be absurd; because, if it was like that, an eternal
movement of skies didn't exist. This is the first principle, or unmoved mover; which is indeed the
supersensible substance.
But how does Aristotle explain the movement produced by something unmovable? His
argumentation is the following. Every human being is attracted by the good. The intellect, is the
best activity in terms of good; hence, every human being is attracted by it, without it to move. God,
is pure intellect because is something intelligible, therefore, it must be attracted, as the human
11

12. beings, by the intellect, namely itself. He is thought that is being thinking constantly to itself, hence,
it is an unmoved mover.
The World is constantly attracted by God as supreme end, and God as well is attracted by the
supreme end, that is, itself.
7. Personal conclusive considerations
Referring to the argumentation of the Four Causes Theory, as we have seen, Aristotle says that
they are no more than four. I think that, effectively, we cannot pretend to find a fifth one. Every
creative process, natural or artificial, needs indeed, every time to go through the four passage those
Aristotle indicated. The most recent scientific researches developed within a
scientific-epistemological modern framework, our experience, and in general, all the knowledge we
have so far in various fields, is nothing but the result of explanations related to the Four Causes
Theory.
Referring to the theme of change instead, as we have seen, Aristotle speaks about it as a
situation in which a certain object having some particular features, whenever goes throughout a
process of change, the object itself, in terms of substance, remains always the same; but something
is gained and something else is lost, as we have seen in the example of Socrates going to the
beach.11
This is a valid premise upon which we can base our scientific discovers, but clearly, it's no
longer to be considered sufficient to explain the modern scientific progress. Surely, we can say that
Aristotle has thrown the bases for the scientific research thanks to his philosophy, and in particular
thanks to his Four Causes Theory; but clearly, today, even though they do represent the historical
starting point of science, we cannot consider them no longer as enough, since the scientific notions,
over the time, has multiplied, opening the road more and more to new epistemological details.
11 See par. 3 at page 6.
12

13. 8. References
Papers and Books
Ackrill, J.L., Aristotle the philosopher, Oxford University Press, 1981.
Aristotle, Metaphysics, Ζ 3, 1029a 33 and followings.
Aristotle, Metaphysics, Θ.
Aristotle, Parts of animals, I 1, 639b12–21 .
Aristotle, Physics, II, 3.
Aristotle. Physics, III.
Aristotle, Prior Analytics II 11, 94a36–b2.
Barnes, J., Aristotle. A very short introduction, Oxford University Press, 2000.
Gill, M.L., Aristotle on substance: the paradox of unity, Oxford University Press, 1989.
Meyer, S.S., “Aristotle, Teleology and Reduction”, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 101, No.
4 (October 1992), pp. 791 – 825.
Reale, G. Introduzione ad Aristotele, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1974, pp. 43 – 72.
Warrintgon, J., Aristotle's Metaphysics, EL.
Internet links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/firstphilosophy.html
http://www.liberliber.it/.../libri/...metafisica.../pdf/aristotele_la_metafisica_1.pdf
13