In this article, I present one of Aristotle’s key contributions to philosophy. Aristotle’s theory of the four causes seems at first sight very easy to understand, but if you dig into the details, you will see its epochal consequences. It changed human mentality, and in doing so, it changed the course of history. The four causes, and in particular the final cause, can dramatically change your life for the better.
Aristotle adopted a systematic approach to studying the world. His theory of the four causes entails that, if you want to fully understand something, you should consider four distinct causes.
First, a material cause that pertains to the material substance that make up an item or creature. For example, the material cause of a woollen suit it wool.
Second, the a formal cause that relates to the object’s shape or structure. In the case of the woollen suit, the formal cause consist of a vest and a pair of pants. Their shape constitute a suit, not a scarf, a raincoat, a shirt, or an overall.
Third, an efficient cause that is concerned with the agent or force responsible for making the object. It replies to “What brought the object into existence?” In the context of the suit, the efficient cause is the tailor who made it.
Fourth, a final cause that deals with the purpose. It answers the question, “Why does the object exist?” In the case of the suit, the final cause is to allow me to wear the suit for work, formal dinners, and other such occasions.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes and Avicenna
The theory of the four causes seems simple enough as a tool for analysing reality, but as we’ll see now, it gets exceedingly complicated when it is coupled to social and political events. It is not exaggerated to affirm that Aristotle’s theory of causation has driven the intellectual discourse for twenty-five centuries.
In the Middle Ages, Avicenna (980-1037) took over the four causes and applied them to his environment. Avicenna was a prominent Persian sage in the Islamic Golden Age. Although he was profoundly influenced by Aristotle’s ideas, he made a large change to the theory of the four causes.
Avicenna’s theory involved a material cause equivalent to Aristotle’s material cause, focusing on the physical substance of an object.
For what concerns the formal cause, Avicenna expanded Aristotle’s concept because by including not only the essential features of an object, but also the secondary “accidental” ones. In this way, Avicenna allowed for a broader understanding of an object’s nature.
Avicenna also retained Aristotle’s concept of efficient cause, but introduced the idea of “necessary existence.” Avicenna was suggesting that the efficient cause of everything is God, which is the only necessary being. The concept of necessary existence enabled Avicenna to reconcile the four causes with Islam.
For what concerns the final cause, Avicenna showed a very heavy influenced of Plato. Instead of expanding on Aristotle’s key innovation, Avicenna downplayed its importance.
Instead of studying the ethical aspects of the final cause, he suggested that everything in the universe is moving toward the ultimate goal of returning to prime mover. This theory is very similar to Plato’s endless search for perfect ideas or forms.
Thirteen centuries after Aristotle’s death, Avicenna initiated a tradition of distorting the four causes to fit his beliefs. I don’t doubt that Avicenna had powerful reasons to do so, but ended up losing the final cause as tool for studying human behaviour.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes and Maimonides
In the ensuing century, Maimonides (1135-1204) continued the tradition of changing Aristotelian thought to fit the specific religious and political circumstances he was facing.
Maimonides was a prominent Jewish philosopher, deeply influenced by Aristotle and Islamic philosophy. He created a distinctive interpretation of Aristotle’s causality.
He did not change the definition of material cause, which he he recognized as a driver of the physical world. He recognized that material substances play a key role in the existence of all items and creatures.
Maimonides was influenced by Aristotle’s formal cause, but focused on the formal cause of the universe itself. He cared more for supernatural, divine forces underpinning reality than for studying objective reality itself.
For what concerns the efficient cause, Maimonides adopted Avicenna’s idea of a necessary being as the ultimate efficient cause of all actions in the universe. He believed that God was the primary and singular true efficient cause, responsible for all existence.
Just as Avicenna had done, Maimonides gave little emphasis to the final cause. He argued that human beings should seek intellectual and moral perfection as their ultimate purpose, but failed to endorse Aristotle’s advice on self-actualization.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes and Averroes
A contemporary of Maimonides, Averroes was a key thinker in the Islamic Golden Age. He played the crucial role in the transmission of Aristotle’s works and ideas to Western Europe. However, Averroes’ interpretation of the four causes deviates from Aristotle’s ideas in some aspects.
For what concerns the material cause, Averroes retained the concept as a fundamental element of causality, perfectly in line with Aristotle’s works.
Averroes expanded Aristotle’s formal cause by postulating that there is one universal form for each class of objects or creatures. He regarded individual beings as expressions of a universal idea or form. In this respect, Averroes was returning to Plato’s theory of perfect ideas or forms.
For what concerns the efficient cause, Averroes emphasized the necessity of an unmovable or prime mover, the weakest concept in Aristotle’s causation theory. Averroes affirmed the existence of a single intellect that acts as the efficient cause for all of humanity.
Finally, Averroes recognized the final cause as a significant aspect of causality, indicating that each being has a telos (end, purpose, motivation) that guides its existence, but subservient to an universal, supernatural single intellect as efficient cause.
Aristotle must have turned in his grave upon hearing of the distortions introduced by Averroes in the four causes, but there was nothing he could do. After fifteen centuries, nobody could bring Aristotelian ideas back to their original intent.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes and Thomas Aquinas
The evolution continued with Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and his synthesis of Aristotelian ideas and Christian theology. Aquinas’ works cleverly blended the two traditions.
He retained the idea of the material cause, understanding that all created things have a material aspect. Note that he had introduced the concept of “created beings” in his definition. In Aquinas’ view, the material cause is the essence of an entity.
Aquinas adopted Aristotle’s concept of the formal cause, but as a blueprint or plan designed by God. The looks, design, and structure of each entity is determined directly by God, an idea that conflicts with Aristotelian views.
For what concerns the efficient cause, Aquinas believed that God is the primary and ultimate efficient cause of all things. He recognized secondary causes and human intervention, but only as subservient elements in shaping events.
Aquinas strongly embraced Aristotle’s concept final cause, but argued that everything in the created world has a purpose or “telos” determined by God’s providence; the divine purpose, according to Aquinas, is the reason why everything exists.
Although Aquinas purportedly endorsed Aristotelian ideas, the truth is that he modified them enormously. By integrating Aristotle’s framework and Christian theology, he regarded God as the efficient and final cause of all creation. For all practical purposes, Aquinas deactivated the critical aspects of Aristotle’s ideas.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes and Albertus Magnus
The process continued with Albertus Magnus (1200-1280), also known as Albert the Great. He was a medieval thinker and theologian who worked indefatigably at transmitting Aristotle’s works to the Latin West.
His theory of the four causes was influenced by Aristotle, but contains major changes.
Albertus Magnus kept Aristotle’s material cause in the same way that Thomas Aquinas had kept it. None of them contested that all things have a material substrate and that one must grasp the physical properties of things to make good decisions.
For what concerns the formal cause, Albertus ratified the ideas of Aristotle. He mentioned the concept of creation as the ultimate reason that gives items and creatures a characteristic shape.
Similarly, Albertus modified Aristotle’s view of the efficient cause by emphasising the divine intervention. Human actions can contributed to make things happen but only God drives the events. It goes without saying that such a view of the efficient cause won’t motivate people to take full responsibility for their future.
Albertus Magnus accepted Aristotle’s idea of a final cause, but regarded it as the purpose for which items and creatures are created by God. He considered God as the ultimate source of causality, a source that overrides all other final causes.
Such a focus on divine action as efficient and final causes reflects the medieval Christian world-view. It nullifies the best part of Aristotelian ethics, namely, the encouragement towards self-actualization, success and happiness.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes and Duns Scotus
In the ensuing century, the evolution of interpretations kept going, John Duns Scotus (1265-1308) provides us a salient example. He was a Franciscan friar and philosopher known for further adapting Aristotle’s ideas on causality.
Like Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, Scotus restated Aristotle’s concept of a material cause. Even in a profoundly religious context, Scotus had no problem acknowledging that individual substances play a key role in defining each entity.
In contrast to Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, Scotus did not see any reason to change Aristotle’s idea of the formal cause. Scotus believed that each individual possesses a unique shape that distinguishes it from others, but did not emphasise God’s intervention in determining that particular shape. He did not imply that God will specifically decide whether a man is going to be short or tall, thin or fat, etc.
Scotus accepted the idea of an efficient cause, mostly driven by each individual’s identity and motivation. He was very close to Aristotle in emphasizing that each human being shall be in charge of its existence. He believed in the possibility of divine intervention but without falling into determinism. Scotus didn’t believe that the universe and human life are pre-ordained.
Finally, Scotus introduced a subtle view of the final cause. He held that final causes can be intrinsic (internal to the thing) or extrinsic (imposed from the outside).
According to Scotus, God is the ultimate final cause able to direct all created beings to their highest good, but one should not relent in his efforts to improve the world, hoping for divine intervention. Miracles constitute a rare exception, not the rule.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes and Thomas Hobbes
Three centuries later, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) came up with a distinctive approach to causality and human nature.
In his political and philosophical works, he commented on the physical aspects of human existence, and used a concept of the material cause similar to Aristotle’s.
Hobbes’ materialist and empirical philosophy did not align with the Christian concept of a formal cause given by God. He didn’t endorse the interpretation given by Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus to Aristotle’s ideas; for all practical purposes, Hobbes’ conception of the formal cause confirmed Aristotle’s.
In contrast to the Christian tradition, Hobbes adopted a very mechanistic view of causality. He believed that human actions can be explained in terms of self-preservation and self-interest. The efficient cause of human actions, according to Hobbes, is rooted in the pursuit of individual gain, tangible or intangible.
For what concerns the final cause, Hobbes rejected the idea of supernatural final causes. He regarded them as unverifiable and unsuitable for understanding human behaviour. Instead, he favoured empirical, observable explanations for human actions in the Aristotelian tradition, but in a pessimistic, harsh manner.
Hobbes’ philosophy represents a significant departure from Aristotle’s four causes. Hobbes’ materialistic, mechanistic view of human behaviour contrasts with Aristotle’s encouragement to embrace virtue and self-actualization.
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes and Friedrich Nietzsche
Two centuries later, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) threw the final stone on the pillars of Aristotelian causality. After the destruction caused by Nietzsche’s ideas, few people today take the trouble to learn about Aristotelian causality.
Nietzsche came up with a highly individualistic, subjective approach to causality. His approach robbed Aristotelian ideas of their most inspiring elements for self-improvement, success and happiness.
In none of his writings did Nietzsche comment on the idea of material cause as found in Aristotle’s theory. For Nietzsche, it was self-evident that Aristotle was right. He had nothing to add and nothing to contest in Aristotle’s concept of the material cause.
However, Nietzsche’s concept of the formal cause differs very significantly from Aristotle’s. While Aristotelian tradition emphasised that shape and structure make individuals unique, Nietzsche only cared for will to power. He regarded the will to power as the driving force behind human actions, a force that superseded any consideration of shape and structure.
For what concerns the efficient cause, Nietzsche did not see human behaviour as subject to efficient causation. He attacked Christian ethics and favoured individual will, instincts, desires and ambitions as driving forces in human actions.
Nietzsche’s ideas entail an extreme oversimplification of the efficient cause in the Aristotelian tradition. Indeed, Nietzsche shared Aristotle’s focus on empirical observation, but seemed unable to see any constructive, inspirational aspects in ethics.
Nietzsche also rejected the Christian concept of final cause, definitively breaking with the trend started by Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus. In this respect, Nietzsche considered the pursuit of divinely predetermined purposes as illusory; for him, the only conceivable final cause if individual ambition.
Sadly, Nietzsche’s destruction of Aristotelian causality stays present in our culture. His ideas have relegated to oblivion the great Aristotelian principles of self-actualization and virtue as the path to happiness.
If you are interested in how to apply Aristotelian ideas to all sort of private and business situations, I recommend you my book titled “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”
Related causes
Happiness and Aristotle’s theory of the soul
Aristotle’s theory of the soul
Aristotle’s concept of teleology
Aristotle’s philosophy of metaphysics