How do we defend the concepts of formal and final causality? How do we defend the notion that the teleology of an act determines its morality?
The intention or thought out goal of an action comes before the motion of acquiring the perfection of the intention.
In other words, reason for action precedes motion of fulfilling an action
What about formal causality?
The final cause(God) implants a nature within the formal cause which tends toward its finality. For example, a fire tends to burn due to its nature. Or a man tending or inclining to happiness, ultimately found eternally only in God. All men desire to be happy, all fire burns.
The formal cause (nature of a thing) has embedded (by the final cause) within it an inclination for its fulfillment. Humans are inclined towards happiness. Ex. Even those who commit suicide (mistakenly) think they are seeking and will be happy in the end.
Sorry wrong type of example to give regarding fire .
Because the unexamined life isn’t worth living. A principle Aristotle knew well.
But Socrates had no problem critically analyzing interpersonal institution’s abstract systems of thinking. Which was what I was driving at.
Also, Aristotle was wrong about like… Most things.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.