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

'Aristotle's theory of the four causes is convincing' Discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

B) 'Aristotle's theory of the four causes is convincing'. Discuss Aristotle's theory of the four causes is convincing because in everything he says we can relate to it. We can relate to it because he used his senses to come up with his theory. Aristotle spent a lot of time observing the world of natural living. He wanted to discover what the purpose of everything was. This is how he came up with his theory of the four causes. For example; what does the heart do? Why does the muscle contract? Scientifically we know now but why do we have to live like this anyway? ...read more.

Middle

Many people have problems believing his theory as you had to believe quite strongly in God as Aristotle believed he was the creator of everything. Aristotle did not question, where creation was created because he already thought he knew. It wasn't a question of weather he believed or not because to him God is pure knowledge. Aristotle's idea of God was one of an unchanging, ultimate designer, who was static and eternal, but impassive. 'Only God, who exists as form without matter is perfect'. However, Aristotle's theory is seen to be a lot more to do with common sense compared to Plato's, which is a lot more to do with interpretation. ...read more.

Conclusion

Another disagreement that Aristotle made was that he could never just 'draw the line' somewhere with what was the ideal. There was always something better than what was thought to be the best. For example; beauty and truth were ideal according to Plato but, how ideal can you get? The reason why Aristotle and Plato had so many disagreements was because they were really talking about completely separate ideas. Plato's theory was based upon situations such as; how justice is known throughout the world? No-one decided upon particular rules to follow. Whereas Aristotle was trying to understand what reality really is. Aristotle's theory was much more convincing as many people can understand more clearly where he got his ideas from but Plato's ideas are quite different to what people would expect to hear. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy 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 AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. A Study of Carl Rogers' Theory of Personality

    The "maladjusted person" is the polar opposite of the fully functioning individual (who was introduced early in this essay). The maladjusted individual is defensive, maintains rather than enhances his/her life, lives according to a preconceived plan, feels manipulated rather than free, and is common and conforming rather than creative (Maddi, 1996).

  2. M-theory is a solution proposed for the unknown theory of everything

    Higher dimensional objects were always present in superstring theory but could never be studied before the Second Superstring Revolution because of their non-perturbative nature. Insights into non-perturbative properties of p-branes stem from a special class of p-branes called Dirichlet p-branes (Dp-branes).

  1. 'Parties do not matter anymore.' Discuss.

    states that were crucial for the Democrats n the 2000 presidential election. Similarly, whereas the function of policy development was traditionally undertaken by the parties, it is now being increasingly undertaken by pressure groups and think tanks. For example, the Democratic party uses the Progressive Policy Institute for much of its policy formulation and development.

  2. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    Since God gave us the earth to use "to the best advantage of life," anyone who lets the land perish and rot has "offended against the common law of nature" (140). Therefore, one can only possess as much land as they can cultivate and use, without wasting anything.

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