Aristotle: Idea of Final Cause and Chance

Categories: Aristotle

Aristotle’s works cover a variety of ideas, claims, and theories. The one I will be discussing is his idea of final cause and chance. Specifically, the idea of final cause in nature and the role of the accidental cause chance. Aristotle states at stephanus pagination 199a around line six, that things which come to be by nature or exist by nature have a final cause. The way I interpret his logic and explanation on ensuing pages is that essentially function follows form.

That is to say, things are formed in a specific way and have a specific shape in order to complete a specific function. This directly combats modern science, especially biological sciences that follow the dogma, form follows function. Another problem with his viewpoint is that in nature things do not come to exist for a specific purpose. Behaviors, traits, and evolution in nature arises simply by chance not final cause. In this essay I will exploit scientific knowledge to bring to light the faults and flaws in Aristotle’s argument for final cause in nature.

Get quality help now
Bella Hamilton
Bella Hamilton
checked Verified writer
star star star star 5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

avatar avatar avatar
+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

I will also argue why his definition of accidental cause and chance would be better suited to explain phenomena in nature. I find it important to note that I use the term form loosely as both to reference Aristotle’s definition and the modern scientifical definition.

Throughout his books Aristotle posits many ideas and theories for how the universe exists and how it and the things exist in it works. The main ones I will be focusing on are his ideas of form and matter, substances, and his four causes specifically the final cause.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Topic
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

You won’t be charged yet!

I will also discuss his idea of accidental causes that consist of chance and luck. Most people think of formulas, velocity, or quantum mechanics when they hear the word physics. However, Aristotle’s book of physics focuses on his ideas of natural science. This includes his idea of what makes things up in the universe to his ideas of nature. He also examines the issue of cause and effect. Matter is defined as the stuff that makes something up. Matter can exist without form, however, form is closely intertwined with matter. Matter and form are posited to define objects. The composite of form and matter is referred to as substances. Substances come into existence when you have matter that then takes on form. His first book of physics is where he begins to discuss the idea of form. Form in Physics I can be boiled down to mean the shape or formula of something. In Aristotle’s books he sometimes claims that form and essence are one in the same. This would mean that form is what gives something its defining characteristics.

Later in Physics II form and final cause are explained to have a close connection. Final cause is the purpose or the goal for which something exists. Aristotle posits that final cause is often the ultimate form something will achieve. There are three other causes of being or essential causes that Aristotle posits as well. They are material, formal, and efficient. Material cause is what something is made from and what undergoes change. Formal cause is the form or shape of something. Efficient cause is the thing or what brings something into being. Anything that undergoes change is claimed to fall under one of these causes. Except Aristotle also observed that things sometimes happen by accident. This is where he posits his idea of two accidental cause. These two other closely intertwined causes are chance and luck. As stated at stephanus pagination 197a line thirty-six, chance and luck differ as luck is a more specific situation. Luck is said to involve an action or purpose. So, luck is induced when you choose to do something and a result occurs because of that choice. Chance is said to come to be without an internal action or intent. It only comes to be when it is driven by an outside effect that is not for its own respect. This would mean it cannot involve any personal force, ambition, or decision that you make. Due to the nature of adult human beings and their ability to make conscious decisions, Aristotle believes that they can only become victim to luck not chance. In a similar fashion he states at stephanus pagination 197b line seven that only children, beasts, and inanimate objects are capable of falling victim to chance.

Aristotle believes in the idea of final cause. This is the concept that claims things have a singular end purpose. Somethings final cause is the specific reason why that thing ultimately exists in this universe, whether it be in terms of humans, animals, or plants. Take for example an apple tree, Aristotle could argue that the final cause of an apple tree is to provide food for humans. Or maybe it is to produce seeds so that the species of the apple tree can live on. So, then the tree did not come to be made in this form that fits perfectly for its purpose by chance, but because this form fits their final cause. He argues a similar point on stephanus pagination 198a line 23, that things in nature could come to be out of necessity. Which is seemingly another way for him to say that this form was shaped according to reach its final cause. For if something is necessary for whatever reason, be it something like survival or something equally as important, this would infer that something changes to fit this necessity. However, in modern science form follows function, function does not follow form. This is often a concept stated in cell biology. For cell shape often denotes their purpose or function. This is due to the slow change or evolution over time. Their form was not made for their function but adapted over time to better complete its job or rule in an organism.

The idea of final cause in nature does not seem to hold up in today’s world however. One of the biggest and most important idea that combats final cause in nature would be evolution. There have been many different interpretations of just what evolution is exactly over the years. These have all culminated in the most widely accepted theory of evolution. This would be defined as heritable change in a population over time. One key aspect of evolution is the condition that evolution has no drive, purpose, or end goal. If Aristotle’s thoughts were to be believed however, this condition would be impossible in nature. For, since evolution acts on living beings, specifically populations of living beings in nature, they would have to have a final cause. Meaning in Aristotle’s world evolution would need to have an end goal or ultimate purpose. This does not ring true however because evolution is often described as a mindless process that follows no true path that leads to no specific place. It begins with a mistake in DNA replication, or a mutation. The mutation has a chance to increase an individual’s fitness. That individual may then survive to reproduce, passing on the mutation in its DNA. Eventually the trait will manage to make it the point where it will become a new adaptation. Over time these adaptations accumulate and lead to a new species. All of this happens by, not a mutation generated with a purpose, but a mutation generated by pure mistake. It just so happened that the mutation was beneficial and was able to carry on. For most mutations are actually considered deleterious or neutral. Beneficial mutations are notably quite rare. This result of adaptations and new species was never an ultimate purpose, but an unforeseen consequence of a mistake in DNA replication. Evolution is not driven by the end goal of making newer and more fit species for certain environments. Evolution for all its intents and purposes can be described as a game of chance.

This brings me to Aristotle’s idea of the accidental cause chance. He states at stefanus pagination 197b line fourteen that chance exists in inanimate things and animals. This would mean that things in nature, animals, are capable of arriving at certain outcomes by chance. This would provide us with sufficient proof that things in nature do not necessarily have to have a final cause. Since he also states that final cause in nature is found in form, if one were to argue that form arises by chance, there would be no final cause. Take for example Darwin’s famous case of the birds known as Galapagos finches. Different finches lived on different islands and acquired different characteristics and forms. This was all due to the fact that different food sizes were present. Birds with bigger beaks ate large food sources and birds with smaller beaks ate smaller food sources. In this case Aristotle would argue that since there were different food sizes present that the birds adapted toward the goal of being able to eat those food sources. However, this is actually not the case. Simply put, larger beaked birds did not come to be with a goal in mind but they were just able to better survive and reproduce. This lead to the larger beaks becoming more fixed in the population, and vice versa with smaller beaks. It was chance that a larger food source was there and that the larger beaks made it easier for the birds to exploit that resource. Their form did not come to be to fulfill a specific function, but their function adapted as a result of their surrounding environment and pre-existing form.

Whether or not these arguments would hold their ground in a debate against Aristotle is unknown. He would most likely respond with would it then be that the final cause in nature is to survive and reproduce? For all mutations and adaptations in nature only continue on if they increase the individual’s fitness. Almost everything that goes on in the lives of plants and animals is for their basic instincts to survive and reproduce. Eating, drinking, and finding shelter, are all done for the sake of their survival. Plants and animals alike adapt certain traits that will help them better survive in their environment and protect them against predators. Think of thorns on a rosebush or the cryptic colors of certain animals. Or how about the schooling effect of fish trying to reduce the probability of becoming prey. Or Batesian or Mullerian mimicry, where different species mimic harmful ones. This is done whether they are harmful or are not themselves in order to avoid predation. There are many cases where traits arise to enhance reproduction as well, think of the peacock with his showy feathers to attract females. Or the spring peeper frog with his call to find a potential mate. There are many examples in nature that provide evidence that the final cause can be considered survival and reproduction.

However, you must take into account altruistic traits when discussing survival and reproduction being the final cause in nature. Altruistic traits often carry on in populations and species. This is counterintuitive however because altruistic traits by definition come at the cost of the individual. In evolution altruism is defined as selfless actions at the detriment to your own wellbeing and direct fitness. This often prevents the survival and eventual reproduction of said individual. Take for example an animal known as the meerkat. Meerkats are burrowing animals but they still leave their burrows to feed and interact. One meerkat often acts as a sentry to watch for predators like hawks. When a predator shows up it calls out an alarm sound to warn the others. It does this even though it will attract the attention of the predator to them. This would be completely illogical if that meerkat’s final cause was to survive and reproduce. It does not derive any direct benefits from this trait, yet it has still carried on generation after generation. Another problem would be the idea of the Zahavian handicap. Zahavian handicaps are when a trait evolves in the males of a species that helps them attract mates. However, this trait may have a cost to the male’s survival associated with. Take the aforementioned peacock example. The showy feathers may help him attract a female to mate with, but it also makes him more visible to predators. So, then this would bring into question the idea that survival is the final cause in nature. There is also the concept of parental care. Many species exhibit the act of parental care. Parental care also comes at the cost of the parents however. For it leads to the input of energy into caring for their young when it could be spent somewhere else. The most notable way energy could be spent instead would be putting into another reproductive effort. Which one would think would be the case if reproduction were the final cause in nature.

You also have to take into account one of the main tenants of evolution, the shifting adaptive landscape. This idea states that the world and environment is always changing and what makes something more fit now might come at a detriment to it in the future. So, if the final cause truly was to increase fitness, or in other words to survive and reproduce, that would mean all mutations and adaptations should make an individual more fit at any place or time. Not just for a short span of time or in one specific place in the environment. This however does not stand because in another idea of evolution the Red Queen Hypothesis states that species are constantly evolving just to keep up. Species are basically engaged in an evolutionary arms race with each other and the environment itself. Over time species are always changing and evolving to better their fitness and to better fit their environment. This is in direct contrast with Aristotle’s belief that final cause in nature is the definitive form something achieves. So, since evolution postulates that species are always adapting and changing, they never reach a final form. If they never reach a final form then they never fulfill a final cause.

So then in nature why do plants and animals take the forms they do? The forms that help the better their survival and reproduction. Simply because of chance. Mutations arise from chance. Mutations continue on in a population by the chance that they are beneficial and improve fitness. These mutations can change the physical shape or form of a species. As time continues on all species will adapt or go extinct. For the only way to live in a continuously adapting landscape is to continuously change yourself. Whether or not you live to tell the tale or become part of the fossil record though is completely up to chance. If the only mutations that arise in a species are deleterious or neutral, chances are you will not be able to change enough to fit the ever-shifting environment. This drives home both points that chance is the driving cause in nature and that final cause does not exist in nature.

Updated: Mar 15, 2022
Cite this page

Aristotle: Idea of Final Cause and Chance. (2021, Mar 23). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/aristotle-idea-of-final-cause-and-chance-essay

Aristotle: Idea of Final Cause and Chance essay
Live chat  with support 24/7

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

get help with your assignment