for Aristotle, the word he used for the 'why' of something was aition, which has been translated as 'cause', although explanation could also be used

change is simply the process by which an object acquires a new form (very different from Plato's idea of Form). the object has the potentiality to become something different, and change is the actualisation of the potential of one form of matter to become another form of mattter

the block of marble has the potential to become an actual statue, th statue is latent within the block of marble - the block of marble has the capacity to become a statue

the marble cannot be both a block and statue at the same time

in another example a piece of wood cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time - so change is this movement between potential and actual

considered at the beginning of his Physics that we can only know something inasmuch as we can explain it

you need actual water to affect the change if an acorn into an oak tree

from this we can see how Aristotle got the first two of his causes - there must be matter, which undergoes the change from one form to another. in other words, if someone asks for an. explanation of it, we can sat what it is made of - eg the statue is made of marble. this would then be the material cause

the sculptor acted upon the stone with his chisel to make the potential statue in the marble an actual statue

eg a chair is more than some wood, it is an object with four legs and a space to sit

idea of purposive cause given because something's aim or goal is also an important part of an explanation of th thing

A gives eg of final cause of walking, medicine, purging, surgical instruments etc. as ask being for health

change is the actualisation of somethings potential with respect to its potentiality -> something can only become what it has in it to be eg a piece of wood can become a bed but a human cannot become a bird

potential of something may be latent until something else acts upon it

Modern science focuses on the efficient cause when explaining the physical world. In fact, the final cause is not considered.

when we are talking about the human world, it makes sense to talk about. why something happened in terms of a final cause -> eg why did you make that cake for Peter? I wanted to cheer him up

this is a teleological reason - makes sense in terms of what goal someone had in mind. we would not get a very good understanding of these actions if we left them out

the logical result of the application of the final cause of the whole universe

the movement from potentiality to actuality is going on ina all things - in other words, change is happening to them

most things are changing (being generated and being destroyed), but sme things are not changing in that way

the objects of desire moves other things to without itself moving (think of how a saucer of milk draws a cat to it) - in this way the prime mover is the cause of the motion of all other things

PM is based on arguments that appeal to a posteriori (observed) evidence; the FoG on a priori argumenst

they are both 'ultimates', which might appeal yo non-theistic deists - impersonal sources of reality, arrived at through philosophical speculation rather than faith

PM: through the idea of everything being drawn to its own purpose

therefore it is a debate in the field if epistemology (philosophy of knowledge)

the empiricist Hume says that ideas do not exist in themselves independently from objects other than as a relation between objects

empircistics would arguetyhat sense experience is the ultimate source of knowledge

ratiinalists argue that concepts are independent of sense ecxperience