Tag: Efficient Cause

Efficient Cause, Again

Yesterday, I changed my thinking about Aristotle’s “efficient cause”, making a somewhat surprising connection to the modern notion of “structural causality”. Then I had to update my account of generalized unmoved movers to add a case for an unmoved efficient cause.

Aristotle’s whole framework of “causes” (answers to “why” questions) is often misunderstood, and it is especially bad with the so-called efficient cause. A quick web search on the latter turns up mostly accounts that are just wrong. (A wonderful exception is the outstanding article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

At Physics 195b22-25, referring back to an earlier example of a man building a house that was initially said (metonymically, it turns out) to be an efficient cause, Aristotle wrote (Complete Works, Barnes edition) “In investigating the cause of each thing it is always necessary to seek what is most precise (as also in other things): thus a man builds because he is a builder, and a builder builds in virtue of his art of building. This last cause then is prior; and so generally.” So it is the art of building — not the carpenter or the hammer or the hammer’s blow — that primarily “builds” the house (i.e., governs the details of the process its construction), and is properly (not just metonymically) called its efficient cause. Once again, for Aristotle it is something at the level of adverbial detail — not the coarse level of agents or action — that is most important.

Having said the other day that Foucaultian discursive regularities are a kind of efficient cause like the art of building, it occurred to me they are also a good example of structural causality, and then that one might say the same about, e.g., the art of building.

Previously, I had been thinking about the efficient cause as functioning like a sort of catalyst. This relatively modest role had led me to privately think of the efficient cause as an “accidental” cause (i.e., one not really contributing to the essence of the thing).

This was at the opposite extreme from the tendency of late scholastics like the great Jesuit Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) to make efficient causes paradigmatic for causes in general, conceived in a proto-modern sense of being responsible for the fact of a thing’s being or existence rather than for the manner of its being, and as involving an “influence” from an agent rather than reasons. (In this context, ends or “final causes” were also reduced to mental intentions of a natural or supernatural agent, as al-Ghazali (d. 1111 CE) had done earlier, quite contrary to Aristotle’s own non-mental account. It was this mentalist reinterpretation that was the real target of Spinoza’s eloquent polemic against against teleology.) There is a nice article by Stephan Schmid on these issues in Suárez.

Anyway, an efficient cause as a point of application of structural causality clearly has a much bigger role to play in determining the detailed nature of a thing than the purely external one of a mere catalyst. (I am using the word “nature” here in a sense broader than Aristotle’s, similar to essence but particular to things that come to be, whereas Aristotle further limited it to nonartificial things, which he thought all contained at least a rudimentary internal principle of motion not shared by artificial things.) On my new account, the efficient cause also exemplifies the interweaving of Aristotelian essence with accident or contingency, due to the role of the semantic materiality as well as form of the means of realization of a nature that is its efficient cause.

This is also more conformant to the idea that all Aristotelian causes are supposed to contribute to explaining the natures of things. Ironically, my previous “catalyst” view made the efficient cause a kind of exception that looked more like the sort of cause of existence I have generally been arguing is un-Aristotelian. As a point of application of structural causality, an efficient cause now fits the general pattern of explaining natures, rather than the mere factual existence of things with natures more or less taken for granted.

Efficient Cause

Each of Aristotle’s four “causes” or kinds of reasons why a thing is the way it is picks out a distinct kind of conceptual content. Actually, none of them — including the efficient cause — should be thought of in terms of anything like a mechanical impulse or force or the exertion of a force. An efficient cause is also not primarily a thing that exerts a force. Rather, an Aristotelian “efficient” cause exercises what in modern terms most closely resembles a sort of structural causality, associated with the form and materiality of the means by which a thing is realized as the sort of thing it is. It acts in an instrumental way that is more “logical” than physical.

In an example of the production of a statue, the efficient cause is not the sculptor, or the sculptor’s will, or the blows of the sculptor’s hammer and chisel. It is the art (objectively characterizable technique) by which the statue is produced. Many people have certainly made contrary assertions about this, but there is, e.g., a good discussion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that supports the above interpretation. (In this simple example, the end is the finished work of the statue. The form and matter are the form and matter of the finished work.)

While the efficient cause is perhaps a little closer to a “cause” in the usual modern sense, it is still far from the same, even though it has a much closer connection to the less common notion of structural causality. Aristotle himself put either form or end first, but influential late scholastics such as Suarez elevated the efficient cause above the other three, perhaps on the ground that God was considered to be pre-eminently an efficient cause (whereas for Aristotle, the “First” cause is primarily an end). I seem to recall some reference to late scholastics treating creation ex nihilo as an example of efficient causality. In any event, Suarez is regarded as treating all four Aristotelian causes on the model of the efficient cause. This helped pave the way for early modern mechanism’s reduction of all causality to a single, univocal form.

Aristotle’s semantically oriented science aims not so much at prediction of what we would call physical events as at a retrospective understanding of why things have turned out the way they have, in a humanly relevant, pragmatic way. Aristotelian “causes” are pluralistic and nonunivocal. They are just reasons why something came out the way it did.