Explain what Aristotle meant by Final Cause: [25] Aristotle’s Final Cause is his theory that all objects have a fundamental reason or purpose for its existence. He questioned why material was the way it was and looked beyond its physicality to what was its purpose and why it exists in our material world. Unlike his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed in only the material world and opposed Plato’s world of the Forms. To him, the final cause was important as the material efficient and formal causes would be pointless without the end product. This is the final cause.
For example why is a chair here? The material cause is what the chair is made from, (an example would be a wooden chair.) the formal cause is what lets the chair be identified as a chair. (So a chair normally has four legs.) The efficient cause is why it is here (so for a chair, someone must have made it.)
These numbers are dependent on variables such as order quantity and holding cost rates. The company desires a simple policy, therefore request integer order cycles. This leads us to concluding that Woodstock Appliance Company should proceed with order cycles of 1, 1, 1, and 3 for Products 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The order quantities will be 97, 193, 577, and 18, rounding up to avoid stock outs. These values are most desirable, not because they minimize costs absolutely, but because they minimize costs in the most simple way.
He also connected Virtue Ethics with life lived according to human reason. Aristotle upheld that the vicious or callous are characters who fail to exercise reason, the supreme human capacity. Aristotle wrote “happiness depends
All humanistic studies are conducted unscientifically. This is a strength of this is that they are less artificial in the way they conduct their studies, this in turn makes the tests more ecologically valid. However a weakness of this is that they have no objective results and they are unable to control variables. This makes causality harder to establish and means psychologists are unable to predict what is going to happen. The humanistic approach represents the ‘healthy half of psychology’ and suggests that we are all with good intentions.
Jasmine Stonehewer a) Explain Aristotle's theory of the Four Causes. [25] Aristotle's theory of the Four Causes was based around his idea of looking at the world and wanting to explain why and how things are the way they are. His empiricist theory of the Four Causes is made up of the material cause (what things are made of), the formal cause (what makes a thing recognisable – it's structure or form), the efficient cause (who made it or what caused it) and the final cause (why it exists). Aristotle believed that everything that exists has a material, formal, efficient and final cause. He also believed that the final cause was the most important because without it there is no point in it being.
Aristotle believed that the world could be explained by physical observation. Plato believed that we needed to look beyond the physical for a metaphysical explanation of the universe in the guise of the World of Forms. Aristotle didn’t believe this. He observed the world around him and noticed that it was in a state of constant flux, a movement from potentiality to actuality. For example my laptop has the potential to run out of battery as I type but is currently in a state of actualised use of battery power.
And here again, we see that if people listen to their conscience, and not to what society want them to believe is good, there will be some beneficial changes. In Civil disobedience, the author proved again that morality, as well as conscience plays an important role. Thoreau argued “It has been truly said, that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience." By this, he too wanted to show that individual can take actions at any time without been influenced because of their own conscience of what is good or bad. By voicing out his conscience, individual will proved his uniqueness.
Dewey believes we consider these more as abilities that exist far from our impulsive desires. So in short, bad habits are acts that make us feel shameful, good habits are admirable. John Dewey mentions though out his writing on habits and will WE are our habit. Now even though I do not entirely comprehend all the points he makes through out the writing, I do know that he mentions several times that to fix or undo our bad habits we must replace with an equally energizing habit that is of goodness. Also to go along with that, you must be able to have more than solely will power to defy a habit.
Is Hume’s rejection of abstract ideas sound, and is his theory of concepts adequate? The notion of abstract ideas has been used by many philosophers, most notably Locke, to explain concepts/thoughts with general content, i.e. being about a class or set of objects. For example, our grasp of the word “triangle” as being about all triangles can be thought to rely on an abstract idea of triangles. An adequate account of concepts is especially important (and challenging) for Empiricist philosophers (such as Locke, Berkeley and Hume), as they cannot rely on a Rationalist-style belief in ethereal, inbuilt intellectual content .