Aristotle on Causes

According to Windelband, Aristotle's doctrine of causes, presents 'material cause' and over and against that, 'formal cause' which includes both efficient and final causes. So it looks like: a)material cause, over and against b)formal cause (efficient and final causes). Traditionally, the causes are numbered as 4. Each cause ('aitia') answers the why question---so that when someone asks why of a given phenomenon, it must be clarified whether the questioner is interrogating as to seeking an understanding of cause in a material, formal, efficient or final sense. Let us consider the following by means of an example.

When giving a cause, one is giving an answer to the question 'why'.The meaning of the question: "What is a drum?" can be understood: Why does a drum, for example, exist? This can be answered in four ways: it is a drum because a drum maker carved it, or Yamaha manufactured an "electronic drumset". To answer this way is to give an account or 'cause' ('aitia') of its efficient manufacture.

Aristotle uses the Greek term 'aitia' which can be translated as cause, but also, principle, or even account. To give an 'aitia' is to give an account for the 'being' or more accurately 'substantial being' of this given thing. Accounting for its being-there is cause-giving, or in a weak sense, explanation.

The phenomenon under discussion (the "drum"); the discussion (dialectical seeking of an adequate account for the phenomenon)---philosophere-to philosophize---i.e. generate beautiful discourses, which ignite wonder and seek for the causes of phenomena (all that comes to be and passes away). All of this can be understood as a seeking of understanding (hermeneuein).

Seeking understanding does not entail a manifold of explanations ('aitia'-but in a narrow sense) infinitesimally describe, but rather expresses an acquiescence. There is an interrogation of being, but once the meaning given is satisfactory the questioner accepts the account given as true or honest. The questioner may, if they so choose, to continue a line of questioning ad infinitum. This is what Western Man has done in terms of scientific growth and technology. He could have accepted the thing as it appears and been quite happy at that, but no... He pressed on, Cartesian paranoia, tear it open, analyze it to bits and then call this scientific understanding. He could have accepted the apple as an apple, or the drum as a drum.

The horizon of the question is apparently unlimited, hence he continuously learns more about the phenomenon under attack. Question after question, leads to only greater question, so that interrogating 'x' entails the totality of understanding from the subject side plus the totality of understanding from the object side. Total subject=thought or consciousness. Total object=history of world. A discourse which links the totality of subject with the totality of object wins! This is another way of saying that given any 'x' entity or thing, the full grasp of this entity cannot be achieved without a complete understanding of universal evolutionary history plus a complete understanding of consciousness. When consciousness is understood as a complete understanding of universal evolution, then this is the most satisfying discourse. However, one may simply say, I am satisfied that this apple is an apple.

For example, in an interrogation concerning a particular phenomenon such as the drum, one will ordinarily acquiesce, or accept the answer or account being made in answer to the question 'why'. Which is after all to give an aitia!