• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

a. Describe Aristotle's teaching about the difference between the Final Cause and other sorts of causes.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

  1. Describe Aristotle’s teaching about the difference between the Final Cause and other sorts of causes.

Aristotle focused his questioning on the reason behind why something exists and what purpose it holds. Opposed to Plato, Aristotle’s theories of why something holds the characteristics that it does is all apparent to the physical world. His thought of ‘form’ was not an ‘ideal’ in another universe, but was within the item, in its structure and characteristics. Aristotle thought that the form of an object is perceivable by the senses we hold instead of being a thought only process. He used the word ‘substance’ to express material in which objects are made from, for example the substance of a chair is the wood, nails and adjustments.

...read more.

Middle

The final cause is however the final and most significant cause. The final cause sums up the understanding of Aristotle’s thinking of existence. The final cause of a painting for example was to make a beautiful painting for reasons that he had particularly aimed to acquire.

The final cause is the purpose for all objects, the end and full perfection of the made thing. Aristotle believed that once an object had reached its goal to be used as it was intended, the object had achieved goodness.

     The final cause, also known as the Prime mover is ultimately the object of everything.

Objects are formed from material by someone changing it into having a purpose, they are always changing, people are growing and material is being sculpted.

...read more.

Conclusion

The prime mover is believed to have no substance or matter as it cannot perform as humans do with movement of thought as this would be changing, and therefore imperfect. Aristotle claimed that the unmoved mover was everlasting, unchanging and spiritual; the final cause of movement therefore is the love and desire for god. God is perfection and therefore everything wants to change to imitate this perfection, creating movement with out moving. Aristotle perceived the final cause or prime mover as god because god does not depend on anything else existing and eternal so cannot create movement by psychical means and thus must create movement to be drawn to him.  

b. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Aristotle’s ideas about cause.

...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Phi Function section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Phi Function essays

  1. Investigate the strength of a snail's mucus on different surfaces

    On the third surface, a thin layer of soft foam, the snails also held on until 150�. We also contribute this to the fact that the surface has a texture and the snails can grip onto it. For the fourth surface, the rough plastic with the oily surface, only one

  2. The totient function.

    I only changed its order by adding another (p). ?(p)� = p x ?(p)� That is ?(p)� = p x p(p - 1) This could also be proved logically as the cube of a prime number will only have factors divisible by the prime number itself.

  1. Describe Aristotle's teachings about the differences between the final cause and the other sorts ...

    Or in fact the formal cause would not be existent as there would not be any work being done. Which would therefore mean that there would just be the substance. The formal cause is the form, shape etc of the completed thing.

  2. Investigating the Phi function

    1,2 (3) = 2 (5) 1,2,3,4 (5) = 4 All prime x prime equations are always multiplicative because they never have shared factors in common (they never have any shared factors). (3x6) = (3)x (6) (18)=6 (3)=2 (6)=2 6= 2x2 incorrect This doesn't work because the 3 & 6 share a common factor which is 3.

  1. In this coursework I was asked to investigate the Phi Function (f) of a ...

    ?(n > 2) = an even number From the previous observations, it was obvious that the phi function should be investigated using prime numbers, as it was the only type of numbers that had a fixed formula. ?(p) = p - 1.

  2. Identify and explain the rules and equations associated with the Phi function.

    ?7=6 ?42=12 ?14=6 ?49=42 ?21=12 ?56=24 ?28=12 ?63=36 ?35=24 ?70=60 These are all multiples of 6. Again there is no clear pattern between all the numbers but the powers of 7x were all 6/7 of 7x. Therefore we can rearrange this into an equation.

  1. The Phi Function Investigation

    These two numbers multiplied together do not equal 22 so this equation does not work. Because the last two numbers that I tried in the equation shared common factors I will now try the opposite and use numbers that do not have common factors.

  2. The Phi Function

    This is because there are 4 integers less than 8 whose factors have nothing in common with the factors of 8 except 1. (5) ?(17) = 16 The factors of 17 are: 1 and 17. The integers, which are less than 17, are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work