John and Pat, (01)
Aristotle's theory of the causes of things is undoubtfully one of the most
valuable contribution into real ontology.
To make his great idea more suitable for modern state of knowledge, i tried
to adjust it for Wickipedians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle (The simple examples are not mine,
added by some other contributors).
In essence:
1. The material cause is that from which a thing comes into existence as
from its parts, constituents, substratum or materials. This reduces the
explanation of causes to the parts (factors, elements, constituents,
ingredients) forming the whole (system, structure, compound, complex,
composite, or combination) (the part-whole causation); (02)
2. The formal cause tells us what a thing is, that any thing is determined
by the definition, form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis, or archetype.
It embraces the account of causes in terms of fundamental principles or
general laws, as the whole (macrostructure) is the cause of its parts (the
whole-part causation). (03)
3. The eficient cause is that from which the change or the ending of the
change first starts. It identifies 'what makes of what is made and what
causes change of what is changed' and so suggests all sorts of agents,
nonliving or living, acting as the sources of change or movement or rest.
Representing the current understanding of causality as the relation of cause
and effect, this covers the modern definitions of "cause" as either the
agent or agency or particular events or states of affairs. (04)
4. The final cause is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done,
including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final
cause or telos is the purpose or end that something is supposed to serve, or
it is that from which and that to which the change is. This also covers
modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as
volition, need, motivation, or motives, rational, irrational, ethical, all
that gives purpose to behavior. (05)
As for chemical reactions, of all the kinds of changes specified by
Aristotle, substantial changes (destruction/generation), quantitative
alterations (increase/decrease), qualitative changes, and change of place or
position (motion/rest), the chemical reactions fall under the changes of
substance, see Brirannica, Knowledge in Depth, Chemical Reactions.
Accordingly, a chemical reaction is commonly defined as a process of change
in which some material substances (reagents) changes into other substances
(products), all subject to the general constraints: substantial
transformation; conservation of the total mass and energy, and the
invariant composition of reacting substances, or components. (06)
Hope it helps the comprehension of Aristotle's ontology as a core of a true
ontology.
Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Intelligent Systems Ltd
Paphos, CYPRUS
Moscoa, RUSSIA
http://www.eis.com.cy
Phone: + 357 26 813 221
Fax: + 357 26 813237 (07)
>Pat,
>
>The distinction is very clear:
>
> > I'd also have a lot of trouble distinguishing
> > material from efficient cases in the case of
> > a simple chemical reaction.
>
>If you have a gas leak in your house, the gas and
>surrounding air are the material causes, and a spark
>that triggers an explosion is the efficient cause. (01) (08)
OK for that case. Now what about mixing baking
soda with vinegar? No spark is required. The
efficient cause is, well, just the materials
together doing their stuff. But that would be the
material cause, right? Or was the efficient cause
the act of doing the mixing? Hmm, that puts a
spark and a movement (and goodness knows what
else, eg a change in termperature) into the same
ontological category. (02) (09)
Im puzzled already. Why are doing this
taxonomizing exercise, again? Was it supposed to
help our thinking? Like the continuant/occurrent
taxonomy, it seems to be no actual use, causes a
lot of puzzlement, and we are only talking about
it at all because some long-dead (and hence
venerated) philosopher thought it up. To hell
with it. (03) (010)
Pat (04) (011)
>
>In particular, Aristotle's four aitia (translated
>to Latin as causae) were four methods of explanation.
>
>The meaning of the word changed when Hume and others
>focused on the efficient cause as the "true" cause.
>But that doesn't make the other three less important
>as bases for explanations.
>
>John
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (013)
|