Aristotle also used the word matter to mean the stuff of which things were made of. So a chairs matter is wood and its form is the structure of the chair itself not platos universal form of the chair but the structure of that particular chair. Aristotle also wondered whether something could have matter but no form and he concluded that it could. There can be prime matter or stuff that had no form, it is not organised into any particular structure. He also raised the question if there could be a form but no matter and he concluded that this is God.
What causes something to be what it is to have the characteristics that it has, or to change in the way that it does? Small children often wonder about this. Sometimes they go through a phase of asking why about anything and everything. For each answer they are given they want to know the reason for this answer and the cause of something can be traced back showing not just one reason but a chain going from the immediate to the final “because it just is” or “because I say so”. Aristotle could be seen in four different ways at four different levels the four causes. Cause is the best translation we have of the word, he used “aition” which is a responsible explanatory factor.
1-Firstly there is he material cause. This answers the question, what is it made of. His examples included that the cause of a statue could be the bronze or of a goblet the silver. The material cause of a chair is the wood but this material is not enough on its own to make the object what it is. We could not for example understand a great painting just by knowing which colours of paint had been used and which type of canvas. Material is necessary but it does not give us the whole answer.
2-Secondly there is the efficient cause. This is the agent, which brings something about for example in the case of a statue it is the person chiselling away and the act of chiselling that causes the statue. This answers the question of how does it happen. It is the sort of answer we expect when we ask about cause the thing which happened to bring about certain results.
3-then there is the formal cause the characteristics which make the object fit into whatever category it fits into. The formal cause provides the form so the formal cause of the statue might be that it has the characteristics of a statue. It is not just a lump of marble that someone has idly chiselled it looks more like a particular person or a creature of some sort.
4-lastly there is the final cause and this is the most important aspect of Aristotle’s thinking on the subject for his understanding of his contribution to the philosophy of religion. Aristotle believed that all objects have an ultimate reason for their existence. The final cause of the statue is that the sculptor wants to make a beautiful object for decorative or commemorative reasons he or she set out with a particular aim in their mind.
For Aristotle then the essence of an object was not just its material component parts or its particular shape or characteristics it also had a purpose a function to perform. When he studied the world and its objects he did not just ask what is it made from or how can it be classified according to its characteristics but also what is it for what purpose does it serve and why is it here at all.
It is this fourth final cause which is the most important and which in Aristotle’s view gives the best explanation of an object. The final end or purpose or teleology of a thing when realised gives that thing its full perfection.
