Ways of knowing - Pursuit of Truth

[Snow]

The great Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was one of the greatest philosopher-scientists who ever lived. He wrote that there are 4 “causes” which describe the existence of any object - what causes a rock or a chair of Shaka Kahn to exist? He said:

“ To know, is to know by means of Causes. A thing is explained when you know the Causes. And a Cause is that which is responsible , in any of the for modes, for a thing’s existence. The four Causes are:

The Material Cause, or Matter out of which the thing is made - What is it made of?

The Motive (or Efficient) Cause, the agent which is responsible for having set the process going, it is that by which the thing is made. How was the thing made.

The Formal Cause or Form, which is responsible for the characteristic of the course which the process follows (this is, what the thing is or is to be). The plan by which the thing is made.

The Final Cause, the End or Object towards which a formative process advances, and for the sake of which it advances, the rational purpose. The purpose for which the thing is made.

For example:

“The 'four causes' provide answers to four questions one might ask about something, for example, a man:

'What is it made from?' 'Flesh and so on' (material cause);

'What produced it?' 'The father (on Aristotle's biology)' (efficient cause);

'What is its form or essence?' 'A two-legged creature capable of reason (say)', (formal cause);

'For what purpose?' 'To fulfill the function of a man (roughly meaning 'to live a life in accordance with reason') (final cause).”

Francis Bacon )1561 - 1626 CE) changed the concept. He was interested in getting people out of the intellectual rut they had been in during the Middle Ages. In dealing with Aristotle’s Four Causes, he said:

“We divided Natural Philosophy in general into the Inquiry of Causes... The one part, which is Physic, enquireth and handleth the Material and Efficient (or Motive) Causes; and the other, which is Metaphysic, handleth the Formal and Final Causes.”

The first two Causes correspond to what we now think of as modern science. - Physic - what something is made of and how it functions and how it comes into being. The last two cause are relegated to Metaphysics, what we think of as today as philosophy and religion. If we we invoke the final cause when trying to discover scientific principles, research becomes stymied. By leaping to the final cause we propose as answer and we no longer sense a reason to do research. According to Bacon, that was the problem of the Middle Ages - people thought they had the answers so they stopped asking questions.

The final two causes are outside the realm of investigation as they cannot be seen or measured. Since science cannot deal with the final cause, invoking it, the final cause, hinders scientific progress. Science can’t answer the Metaphysic. Religion properly relates to the final cause but historically has done a remarkably lousy job describing the Physic

[ideas and quotes from Evolution and Mormonism and Philosophyprofessor.com]

[JudoMinja]

Some thoughts stimulated by this topic:

The first two causes delve into the past, the history, the origins of the object of investigation. This can relatively easily be studied. We can determine the origins and physical nature of just about everything before us when following the right logical process and have spent much time doing so. We know the material make-up and physical source of nearly every biotic and abiotic thing we've come in contact with (we being humanity as a whole and not necessarily an individual).

The third cause looks at the present and is even easier to determine than the first two. It is what stares you right in the face, what stands before you to been seen, touched, heard. It is the basis of everything else, for if you cannot define that which is around you, you cannot delve deeper into its origins or nature.

The final cause looks toward the future. It is the "Why are we here?" question which can only be answered with speculation, because we cannot see the future and we cannot see evidence of its passing because it is yet to come. It is the hardest question to answer, and is seen by many to be the "Final" answer. Many think that when they know this, nothing further need be studied.

However, we need to understand all positions- past, present and future. Without giving the present definition, we have nothing. Our form and intelligence is scattered, unorganized, pointless. Without delving into the past we will never learn the chains of cause-and-effect, never follow the evidence trail of what has passed to what is present. Without seeking for the future, we will never give this study meaning.

Science, which largely answers the first two causes and philosophy/religion, which largely answers the second two questions are both incomplete. They are attempts to segment our reasoning capacity and seperate learning into different boxes. Life, however, was not meant to be contained in a box, and all the pieces are neccessary to create a completed whole.

We need to ask "Who are we?" (Causes 1 and 3), "Where did we come from?" (Causes 1 and 2), and "Where are we going?" (Cause 4). All these questions are important. All these questions need answers.

Furthermore, science does not even fully answer cause 1. It only covers that which we can physically measure. What about that which we cannot measure? That which we feel without the use of our five senses? This "other sense" is there, no matter how much science attempts to discount it's existence. Only when it is also taken into account will we arrive at a full, complete answer.

To find truth, we must search every angle, explore every option, employ every sense. It is when we are discouraged to delve, told to look no further, threatened for showing curiousity, that truths are being hidden. Sometimes we do it to ourselves. Our comfort with the known, our fear of uncertainty, puts us in boxes of our own making where we are unwilling to seek further knowledge. Sometimes we are coaxed into these boxes by those intending to protect us from harm. But it is only when we wade through everything, employing all our capacities, sorting out the lies, that we will come to find the truth for ourselves and we will build our understanding of the world around us and our purpose in it.

[Elgama]

I have studied many different degree level subjects, astronomy, particle physics, archaeology, chemistry, history and law etc The more I learn the less I know for sure, I see the holes in the study, the way it could all change, the one's that are the most convincing to me that they know their subject are the ones that can talk about their subject on an appropriate level for everyone to understand. Tend to feel the one's that can't are hiding the fact actually they really don't know what they are talking about and don't really understand their subject. Its amazing how many people at the top of their field when you continue with the how and why questions actually don't know for sure why or how, they know it does. The one's that know their subject will stand that level of questioning and admit the areas they don't know, the one's that are less secure tend to spout at a level they know most people won't follow what they are talking about. I find my varied background allows me to ask questions in different ways and present information differently.

Personally i have always appreciated the hand of the Holy Ghost in my studies, the ability to talk to Heavenly Father about what I am studying. I misunderstood a blessing about returning to university for the second year of archaeology as a result i didn't have the support and companionship I was used to when studying and it was horrible. I see the Holy Ghost work in academics even when they don't realise it but I also recognise when they have closed their hearts and minds to what it is saying.

Also Aristotle didn't have to deal with the level of corruption in academics today remember a study in the UK Psychologist Magazine (professional journal for the subject), that said 75% of academics had been at least asked by their backers to tweak or slant results with threat of the funding being removed. I saw things disappear conveniently in my own field Archaeology, as a result I tend to be very suspicious of most research.

I tend to find in my own life I get myself into trouble, because I don't speak like an academic unless I am with one, whilst I have a considerable brain power and talent for academic study it comes very easily to me, my illness blocks a lot of my knowledge and thought processes they tend only to get working again these days when high levels of adrenalin start pumping through my body through anger or deadline approaching. A lot of people will talk over me and treat me like and idiot not realising I actually know what they are talking about or are following the conversation. They have decided becaue I don't speak that way I am an idiot. Then they realise actually not only am I as intelligent and have a reasonable level of education coupled with an ability to research anything for myself, and jelousy comes out. It happened at church recently when something happened to my daughter our Branch President and RS President often go on about their education, and how brilliant they are but got nasty when they discovered I could match

them.

I love reading the scholars of the Victorian Era, usually independently wealthy they were not hampered by backers, often they had no degree and didn't pigeon hole themself to one subject which gave them a better perspective on what they studied. They also studied because they loved learning, yes egos were involved but not to the same extent. I worked at a museum that allowed me to read personal letters from the likes of Hugh Miller, Charles Darwin, Alexander Graham Bell (he actually briefly taught at my high school), Rev George Gordon etc and the difference in the way they went about their studies is refreshing. They were also capable of learning for themselves which I feel many students in 2010 lack, they don't seem to be able to manage without some level of teaching or being told. I was shocked how many of my first year fellow archaeology students couldn't think outside the box and find their own research without first having been taught how to do so, and being at a traditional university first things we were taught was how to do archaeology, how to do history many courses do not teach that in the UK in the same depth.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Elgama

[Moksha]

Snow, at what points do the physical and metaphysical intersect?