39 - Form and Function: Aristotle's Four Causes

Podcasts you recently discovered, I dare say, what God gave you: well written, well told, just right flirt. I received B.A. In the philosophy more than 30 years ago I accepted this comment from a distance sufficient to accept the premise that there is no obvious gap. Up to the 39th round

You are a little irritated by dismissing the ultimate cause of Aristotle. You provide Darwin's theory and genetics as ample evidence of natural randomness to inherit the concept of every object to life. Your advice on designing in nature is obviously a problem.

Today, many philosophers and scientists seem to neglect to ignore intelligent design problems, so they are impatient with those who cast doubts on this self-evident truth. Although their ability to understand this "universal denial" is worthy of praise, I am disappointed that I can not understand the unintelligibility of the existence and the resultless meaninglessness.

In any case, Peter proved your patience, both in preparation for this series and serious response to the people who commented. Can you explain that there is no purpose or purpose?

I may say that the responsibility of proof proves to me the ultimate cause, but I will refer to Aristotle's nature observations. His argument is generalized. I recommend that you can prove it

I will accept this from a philosophical, rational point of view, we do not know what the ultimate cause or purpose of Kirin is. However, this does not mean that Kirin does not possess the ultimate cause or purpose. Likewise, there is evidence that even if you do not know what the purpose is, there is a purpose for that purpose. I think that this is the main view of Aristotle on the ultimate cause.

Further details recognized by later scientific observations did not refute this. In order to oppose Aristotle, people seem to have to describe their evidence silly as "non intellectual design" or "non intellectual design". When expressing it as "obvious design" in your speech, you seem to like the latter position.

I think that philosophers will first defend the concept of purpose. If there is no purpose of existence, philosophy is not the most meaningful in pursuing all intellectuals. Every philosophy including Plato is just a footnote for more practical science.

Aristotle proposed a universal philosophy of science including a description of interpretation and causality. There he outlined four changes (substance or substance movement) and called it four causes (cause). Aristotle uses the Greek word aition (αιτιον) or plural word (αιτια). It has been converted to reason, reason, change in English. For Aristotle, people can cite what can answer questions This question has different meanings depending on the particular situation. Readers in the 20th and 21st century often explain the concept of reason in the sense of causality, but Aristotle adopted a more general meaning. The first reason, the material cause is to make things. The second reason, formal reasons are designs or patterns that give shape to the problem. The third reason, the effective reason is to make things formal. The fourth reason, and the last reason, is the end or purpose of the synthesis of form and matter.

For Socrates, mankind and all nature are metaphysical concepts. Aristotle developed a standard representation of this method using his four theory theory. Each creature shows four aspects, "Cause". Material, form, effect, and finish. For example, oaks are made of plant cells (substances), grow from acorn (effect), show the characteristics of oak (morphology), and grow to fully mature oak (final). Aristotle believes that humanity is an example of formal business. Likewise, our goal is to be a fully understood person (including full perception of the mind). Nicomachean Ethics (Book X) shows that human intelligence (νούς) is "minimal", but it is the most important part of the human mind and should cultivate the most important part. Learning and intellectual growth of philosophers, and therefore the most happy and most painful life