Does Aristotle's Final Cause Make Sense?
[Despite what scientists and philosophers have believed since Descartes, Aristotelian] final causes are really neither so egregious nor so absurd as one might suppose. Of course, what has always been assumed to be wrong with them is that since a final (from the Latin, finis ) cause connotes an end or goal or purpose, to introduce final causes into nature and to suggest that such causes are among the necessary conditions even of the purely physical changes that take place in nature, is to conceive of such changes as if they were comparable to the purposive actions of human beings. And that is patently absurd: the wind doesn't blow, nor does water flow down hill, nor does fire burn, not do physical bodies move, for a purpose. So enough of that! Still, rather than being carried away by diatribes, let us look for a moment at the facts, so as to see not merely what Aristotle thought final causes are, but also how they function in an Aristotelian scheme of things.... [T]he moment we stop