The Four Causes (Aquinas 101)

[@MariEllaOficial]

Esses vídeos curtinhos realmente facilitam a aprendizagem, obrigada. Vim pela Academia Atlântico, do Brasil. Mais alguém?

[@JohnathanHonoratoRosa]

Opa, presente.

[@pedrovinicius1920]

Eu!!!

[@namapalsu2364]

Fr. Dominic Legge needs to add that the final cause is the one that drives the other causes. The final cause is in fact the first cause that comes to mind before the other 3 causes. Ie. one first desires to have some platform to eat. He then choses the material and the form, and figures out how to make it.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Excellent point!

[@forironman3641]

Final cause: First in intention, last in execution.

[@aclaylambisabirdman6324]

Wonderful series. So grateful. God Bless you all!

[@albertbenedictsolimanosa5552]

The concept of "four causes" helped me understand the celebration of the Sacraments better: the form, the matter, the minister, and their end which is to both express and effect God's grace upon the person 😁

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Causal thinking is great for beginning to plumb the depths of the sacraments.

[@kumarbara6094]

Very good explanation thanks father

[@michaelvallone6291]

Great Series

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers!

[@irodjetson]

I wish all these videos were in Spanish also. Great work, this is a very good way to get people into these principles

[@irodjetson]

@@khalilkansou These types of comments get so boring after a while.

[@khalilkansou]

@@irodjetson yea that's a very strong argument! At the same time what should we except from people who reason as follows: God exists God is allmighty God transform water in wine Therefore God exists! Hahahaha please!

[@annakareninacamara6580]

They're subtitled! At least every video I saw from Aquinas 101 is.

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of the four causes concept presented in the video, along with some alternative explanations: The four causes framework - material, formal, efficient, and final - has origins in Aristotelian and Scholastic thought. While historically influential, it has been subjected to philosophical scrutiny. First, the form/matter distinction seems to imply a kind of dualism that may not find support today. Alternative views see form arising from complex structural arrangements of matter itself. Second, the concept of final causes in nature teleologically explaining phenomena according to purpose has been critiqued as an antiquated view ignoring physical causation. Modern science provides alternate mechanical explanations of phenomena without recourse to inherent purpose. Third, the hierarchy of the four causes with formal and final as superior can be seen as an unnecessary ontological stacking, rather than causal factors working in conjunction. Alternate frameworks offer more practical plurality of causes, for example: - Materialist - causal factors entirely physical/efficient causes - Pragmatic - causes sought based on what best predicts and explains - Complex - multiple intersecting causal strands rather than hierarchical levels While the four causes have historical significance, contemporary philosophical critiques and alternative approaches are compelling. The notion of causation itself remains relevant, but modern applications may find new perspectives more suitable than Aristotelian forms.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:29 🛠️ The efficient cause is what makes something or brings it about, like a carpenter building a table. 00:57 🪵 The material cause refers to the material or substance from which something is made, like wood for a table. 01:20 📐 The formal cause relates to the essence, nature, or design of something, defining what it is and guiding its creation. 03:04 🍽️ The final cause is the ultimate purpose or reason for something, such as the purpose of a table being for dining. Understanding the final cause is essential to fully explaining something. Made with HARPA AI

[@letdaseinlive]

What is the final cause of a lion?

[@peter_hobbs]

You use the words "form"," nature" and "essence" together, like synonyms. Do they essentially mean the same thing, or does each term have a slightly unique technical meaning, or does each simply come out of a particular school or branch of philosophy or religion? Which is the most clear and instructive?

[@peter_hobbs]

Excellent video btw. Very clear and instructive. Thank you

[@gonzalomorales1342]

Which type of cause does the maker's personal motive fall into?

[@kristindreko3194]

Thank you, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

[@josephzammit8483]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZnXQg6uEopuAm6M

[@Horns2014]

So how would you apply this to God? God is the first efficient cause of all?

[@stephannaro2113]

Some more in-depth analyses of the four causes, including professor Dennett's explanation of how some final causes can be the products of evolutionary processes: kzbin.info/aero/PLSvp5SOWnDKyliASebCMiXBs0Py8pRs9G

[@TheChurchOfPhakeKnewz]

A Summary would have been nice.

[@alexandrepereira3902]

E X C E L L E N T you are doing the work of God... Tku

[@SN-xk2rl]

Argh. So many videos get this wrong. Aristotle's causes don't deal with why - which is about meaning, but instead, deal with HOW, what is causing X to be, to stay, to change, to become, HOW does this thing exist, happen, change, alter, etc. IT is how that cause deals with. Sloppiness in this matter is a real weakness.

[@marjorietrujillo4422]

It is my understanding that one of the great contributions of Aquinas is the synthesis of many philosophical, scientific etc. ideas of thought known in his time. You are not suggesting these thoughts are ‘discoveries’ of Aquinas...correct?? I’m obviously NOT a genius, but I am trying to follow the line of thought. Thanks...

[@mariao62]

He notes that Aquinas is "following" Aristotle, using his ideas and adapting them for his theological use. His integration of Aristotle was both groundbreaking and controversial in his own time.

[@franciskm4144]

My comment is not to belittle the contribution of Aquinas. Synthesis is itself is very important.what we have to imitate from Aquinas? Not the results of his synthesis but the process of synthesis itself. Western society developed not only by accepting the results of his analysis but also by imitating his methodology. Catholic expositions of Aquinas limited to the results of his synthesis. However I appreciate the the venture Aquinas 101.I have recommended my theology students to view this channel. May God bless you.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're right. This is described by Aristotle in its essential contours a full 1500 years before St. Thomas.

[@JohnLinge]

All philosophical discoveries are built upon the works of others. Aristotle built on Plato, correcting him where he thought he was wrong. Aquinas built on Plato, Aristotle, Augustine and others, extending their thought and correcting it where he thought it incorrect. For example, Aristotle did not differentiate between being and essence, while Aquinas does and that distinction is a key component of his philosophy. It does Aquinas a great injustice to think of him merely as a synthesizer.

[@franciskm4144]

@@JohnLinge I agree with you. Synthesized and upgraded. Thanks

[@John-115]

Comment

[@aiantenor9080]

Efficient cause, material cause, formal cause, final cause. If Christians just watch this video and understand this, then there would be less and less cases of abortion, transgenderism etc. That is the hope.

[@nicholasvogt2524]

Fr. Raymond lol

[@AntiCitizenX]

I find it disturbing that people would willingly base their theology on the antiquated notions of Aristotle. The world has advanced a bit in the last 2000 years, guys. Get with the times.

[@legron121]

Why? Do you find it disturbing that people willingly base their mathematics on the antiquated notions of Euclid, since the world has advanced 2000 year since then? I note that you provide no specific example of an advancement in knowledge which renders Aristotle's metaphysics obsolete.

[@bobaphat3676]

Lol you are standing on the shoulders of giants, remember that. Secondly, how can you be so sure the world has "advanced" in 2000 years? Surely, in some matters it has advanced but in others it had regressed, and arguments can be put forth for both views.

[@carolusaugustussanctorum]

And I find it disturbing that you still don't know that perennial truths do not change and still is sassy about it.

[@AntiCitizenX]

@@carolusaugustussanctorum The fact that you think Aristotle devised a single perennial truth of any significance tells me everything I need to know about your complete philosophical incompetence.

[@carolusaugustussanctorum]

@@AntiCitizenX You believe philosophers “devise” truths instead of systematically establishing them and that Aristotle (that is alongside Plato seen as one of the founders of Western Philosophy) never did a single one, but still has the sassy ridiculous hypocrise to say to know my “complete philosophical incompetence”. Lack of basic common sense combined with a disproportional enormous pretension does is something embarrassingly sad to see, and you're a great example of that.