Part 22 (2/2)
We reply that as a matter of fact the effects produced in the ordinary course of nature are produced by G.o.d under both formalities; but also by the created cause under both formalities: inasmuch as the formalities are but mentally distinct aspects of one real result which is, as regards its extrinsic causes, individual and indivisible. The distinction of these formal aspects only helps us to realize how _de facto_ such an effect is due to the cooperation of the First Cause and created causes. That G.o.d _could_ produce all such effects without any created causes-we must distinguish. Some such effects He could not produce without created causes, for such production would be self-contradictory. He could not produce, for instance, a volition except as the act of a created will, or a thought except as the act of a created intellect, or a vital change except as the act of a living creature. But apart from such cases which would involve an intrinsic impossibility, G.o.d could of course produce, without created agents, the effects which He does produce through their created efficiency. It is, however, not a question of what _could be_, but of what _actually is_. And we think that the arguments already set forth prove conclusively that creatures are not _de facto_ the inert, inactive, aimless and unmeaning things they would be if Occasionalism were the true interpretation of the universe of our actual experience; but that these creatures are in a true sense efficient causes, and that just as by their very co-existence with G.o.d, as contingent beings, they do not derogate from His Infinite Actuality but rather show forth His Infinity, so by their cooperation with Him as subordinate and dependent efficient causes they do not derogate from His supremacy as First Cause, but rather show forth the infinite and inexhaustible riches of His Wisdom and Omnipotence.
CHAPTER XV. FINAL CAUSES; UNIVERSAL ORDER.
106. TWO CONCEPTIONS OF EXPERIENCE, THE MECHANICAL AND THE TELEOLOGICAL.-We have seen that all change in the universe demands for its explanation certain real principles, _viz._ pa.s.sive potentiality, actualization, and active power or efficiency; in other words that it points to material, formal and efficient causes. Do these principles suffice to explain the course of nature to the inquiring mind? Mechanists say, Yes; these principles explain it so far as it is capable of explanation. Teleologists say, No; these principles do not of themselves account for the universe of our experience: this universe reveals itself as a _cosmos_: hence it demands for its explanation real principles or causes of another sort, _final causes_, the existence of which implies purpose, plan or design, and therefore also intelligence.
The problem whether or not the universe manifests the existence and influence of final causes has been sometimes formulated in this striking fas.h.i.+on: Is it that birds have wings in order to fly, or is it merely that they fly because they have wings? Such a graphic statement of the problem is misleading, for it suggests that the alternatives are mutually exclusive, that we must vote either for final causes or for efficient causes. As a matter of fact we accept both. Efficient causes account for the course of nature; but they need to be determined by the influence of final causes. Moreover, the question how far this influence of final causes extends-_finality_ (_finalitas_), as it is technically termed-is a secondary question; nor does the advocate of final causality in the universe undertake to decide its nature and scope in every instance and detail, any more than the physical scientist does to point out all the physical laws embodied in an individual natural event, or the biologist to say whether a doubtful specimen of matter is organic or inorganic, or whether a certain sort of living cell is animal or vegetable. The teleologist's thesis, as against that of mechanism, is simply that _there are final causes in the universe, that the universe does really manifest the presence and influence of final causes_.(501)
There are two ways, however, of conceiving this influence as permeating the universe. The conception of final causality in general is, as we shall see, the conception of acting _for an end_, from a _motive_, with a _purpose_, _plan_ or _design_ for the attainment of something. It implies arrangement, ordination, adaptation of means to ends (55). Now at least there _appears_ to be, pervading the universe everywhere and directing its activities, such an adaptation. The admirable equilibrium of forces which secures the regular motions of the heavenly bodies; the exact mixture of gases which makes our atmosphere suitable for organic life; the distance and relative positions of the sun and the earth, which secure conditions favourable to organic life; the chemical transformations whereby inorganic elements and compounds go to form the living substance of plants and are thus prepared for a.s.similation as food by animal organisms; the wonderfully graded hierarchy of living species in the animate world, and the mutual interdependence of plants and animals; the endless variety of instincts which secure the preservation and well-being of living individuals and species; most notably the adaptability and adaptation of other mundane creatures to human uses by man himself,-innumerable facts such as these convince us that the things of the universe are _useful to one another_, that they are const.i.tuted and disposed in relation to one another _as if they had been deliberately chosen_ to suit one another, to fit in harmoniously together in mutual co-ordination and subordination so that by their interaction and interdependence they work out a plan or design and _subserve as means to definite ends_. This suitability of things _relatively to one another_, this harmony of the nature and activity of each with the nature and activity of every other, we may designate as _extrinsic_ finality. The Creator has willed so to arrange and dispose all creatures in conditions of s.p.a.ce and time that such harmonious but purely extrinsic relations of mutual adaptation do _de facto_ obtain and continue to prevail between them under His guidance.
But are these creatures themselves, in their own individual natures, equally indifferent to any definite mode of action, so that the orderly concurrence of their activities is due to an initial collocation and impulse divinely impressed upon them from without, and not to any purposive principle intrinsic to themselves individually? Descartes, Leibniz and certain supporters of the theory of atomic dynamism regarding the const.i.tution of matter, while recognizing a relative and extrinsic finality in the universe in the sense explained, seem to regard the individual agencies of the universe as mere efficient causes, not of themselves endowed with any immanent, intrinsic directive principle of their activities, and so contributing by mere extrinsic arrangement to the order of the universe. Scholastic philosophers, on the contrary, following the thought of Aristotle,(502) consider that every agency in the universe is endowed with an _intrinsic principle of finality_ which constantly directs its activities towards the realization of a perfection which is proper to it and which const.i.tutes its intrinsic end (45-46). And while each thus tends to its own proper perfection by the natural play of its activities, each is so related to all others that they simultaneously realize the extrinsic purpose which consists in the order and harmony of the whole universe. Thus the extrinsic and relative finality whereby all conspire to const.i.tute the universe a _cosmos_ is secondary and posterior and subordinate to the deeper, intrinsic, immanent and absolute finality whereby each individual created nature moves by a tendency or law of its being towards the realization of a _good_ which _perfects_ it as its natural end.
In order to understand the nature of this intrinsic and extrinsic finality in the universe, and to vindicate its existence against the philosophy of Mechanism, we must next a.n.a.lyse the concept, and investigate the influence, of what are called _final causes_.
107. THE CONCEPT OF FINAL CAUSE; ITS OBJECTIVE VALIDITY IN ALL NATURE.
CLa.s.sIFICATION OF FINAL CAUSES.-When we speak of the _end_ of the year, or the _end_ of a wall, we mean the extreme limit or ultimate point; and the term conveys no notion of a cause. Similarly, were a person to say ”I have got to the _end_ of my work,” we should understand him to mean simply that he had finished it. But when people act deliberately and as intelligent beings, they usually act for some _conscious purpose_, with some _object in view_, for the achievement or attainment of something; they continue to act until they have attained this object; when they have attained it they cease to act; its attainment synchronizes with the _end_ of their action, taking this term in the sense just ill.u.s.trated. Probably this is the reason why the term _end_ has been extended from its original sense to signify the _object_ for the attainment of which an intelligent agent acts. This object of conscious desire _induces_ the agent to seek it; and because it thus influences the agent to act it verifies the notion of a _cause_: it is a _final cause_, an _end_ in the causal sense. For instance, a young man wishes to become a medical doctor: the _art of healing_ is the _end_ he wishes to secure. For this purpose he pursues a course of studies and pa.s.ses certain examinations; these acts whereby he qualifies himself by obtaining a certain fund of knowledge and skill are _means_ to the end intended by him. He need not desire these preparatory labours _for their own sake_; but he does desire them as _useful for his purpose_, as _means_ to his end: in so far as he wills them as means he wills them not for their own sake but because of the end, _propter finem_.
He _apprehends_ the end as a _good_; he _intends_ its attainment; he _elects_ or _selects_ certain acts or lines of action as means suitable for this purpose. An end or final cause, therefore, may be defined as _something apprehended as a good, and which, because desired as such, influences the will to choose some action or line of action judged necessary or useful for the attainment of this good_. Hence Aristotle's definition of end as t? ?? ??e?a: id cujus gratia aliquid fit: _that for the sake of which an agent acts_.
The end understood in this sense is a _motive_ of action; not only would the action not take place without the agent's intending the end, showing the latter to be a _conditio sine qua non_; but, more than this, the end as a good, apprehended and willed, _has a positive influence_ on the ultimate effect or issue, so that it is really a _cause_.
Man is conscious of this ”finality,” or influence of final causes on his own deliberate actions. As an intelligent being he acts ”for ends,” and orders or regulates his actions as means to those ends; so much so that when we see a man's acts, his whole conduct, utterly unrelated to rational ends, wholly at variance and out of joint with the usual ends of intelligent human activity, we take it as an indication of loss of reason, insanity. Furthermore, man is free; he _chooses_ the ends for which he acts; he acts _elective propter fines_.
But in the domain of animal life and activity is there any evidence of the influence of final causes? Most undoubtedly. Watch the movements of animals seeking their prey; observe the wide domain of animal instincts; study the elaborate and intricate lines of action whereby they protect and foster and preserve their lives, and rear their young and propagate their species: could there be clearer or more abundant evidence that in all this conduct they are _influenced_ by objects which they _apprehend_ and seek as _sensible goods_? Not that they can conceive in the abstract the _ratio bonitatis_ in these things, or freely choose them as good, for they are incapable of abstract thought and consequent free choice; but that these sensible objects, apprehended by them in the concrete, do really influence or move their sense appet.i.tes to desire and seek them; and the influence of an object on sense appet.i.te springs from the goodness of this object (44, 45). They tend towards _apprehended_ goods; they act _apprehensive propter fines_.(503)
Finally, even in the domains of unconscious agencies, of plant life and inorganic nature, we have evidence of the influence of final causes. For here too we witness innumerable varied, complex, ever-renewed activities, constantly issuing in results useful to, and good for, the agents which elicit them: operations which contribute to the _development_ and _perfection_ of the natures of these agents (46). Now if similar effects demand similar causes how can we refuse to recognize even in these activities of physical nature the influence of final causes? Whenever and wherever we find a great and complex variety of active powers, forces, energies, issuing invariably in effects which suit and develop and perfect the agents in question,-in a word, which are _good_ for these agents,-whether the latter be conscious or unconscious, does not reason itself dictate to us that all such domains of action must be subject to the influence of final causes? Of course it would be mere unreflecting anthropomorphism to attribute to _unconscious_ agencies a _conscious_ subjection to the attracting and directing influence of such causes. But the recognition of such influence in this domain implies no nave supposition of that sort. It does, however, imply this very reasonable view: that there must be some reason or ground in the nature or const.i.tution of even an inanimate agent for its acting always in a uniform manner, conducive to its own development and perfection; that there must be in the nature of each and every one of the vast mult.i.tude of such agents which make up the whole physical universe a reason or ground for each co-operating constantly and harmoniously with all the others to secure and preserve that general order and regularity which enables us to p.r.o.nounce the universe not a _chaos_ but a _cosmos_. Now that ground or reason in things, whereby they act in such a manner-not indifferently, chaotically, capriciously, aimlessly, _unintelligibly_, but definitely, regularly, reliably, purposively, _intelligibly_-is a real principle of their natures, impressing on their natures a definite tendency, directive of their activities towards results which, as being suited to these natures, bear to these latter the relation of final causes. A directive principle need not itself be conscious; the inner directive principle of inanimate agents towards what is _good_ for them, what _perfects_ them, what is therefore in a true and real sense their end (45, 46), is not conscious. But in virtue of it they act as if they were conscious, nay intelligent, _i.e._ they act _executive propter fines_.
Of course the existence of this principle in inanimate agencies necessarily _implies_ intelligence: this indeed is our very contention against the whole philosophy of mechanism, positivism and agnosticism. But is this intelligence really identical with the agencies of nature, so that all the phenomena of experience, which const.i.tute the _cosmos_ or universe, are but phases in the evolution of One Sole Reality which is continually manifesting itself under the distinct aspects of nature and mind? Or is this intelligence, though _virtually immanent_ in the universe, really distinct from it-_really transcendent_,-a Supreme Intelligence which has created and continues to conserve this universe and govern all its activities? This is a distinct question: it is the question of Monism or Theism as an ultimate interpretation of human experience.
We conclude then that what we call _finality_, or the influence of final causes, pervades the whole universe; that in the domain of conscious agents it is _conscious_, _instinctive_ when it solicits _sense appet.i.te_, _voluntary_ when it solicits _intelligent will_; that in the domain of unconscious agencies it is not conscious but ”_natural_” or ”_physical_”
soliciting the ”_nature_” or ”_appet.i.tus naturalis_” of these agencies.
Before inquiring into the nature of final causality we may indicate briefly the main divisions of final causes: some of these concern the domain of human activity and are of importance to Ethics rather than to Ontology.
(_a_) We have already distinguished between _intrinsic_ and _extrinsic_ finality. An intrinsic final cause is an end or object which perfects the nature itself of the agent which tends towards it: nourishment, for instance, is an intrinsic end in relation to the living organism. An extrinsic final cause is not one towards which the nature of the agent immediately tends, but one which, intended by some other agent, is _de facto_ realized by the tendency of the former towards its own intrinsic end. Thus, the general order of the universe is an extrinsic end in relation to each individual agency in the universe: it is an end intended by the Creator and _de facto_ realized by each individual agency acting in accordance with its own particular nature.
(_b_) Very similar to this is the familiar distinction between the _finis operis_ and the _finis operantis_. The former is the end necessarily and _de facto_ realized by the act itself, by its very nature, independently of any other end the agent may have expressly intended to attain by means of it. The latter is the end expressly intended by the agent, and which may vary for one and the same kind of act. For instance, the _finis operis_ of an act of almsgiving is the actual aiding of the mendicant; the _finis operantis_ may be charity, or self-denial, or vanity, or whatever other motive influences the giver.
(_c_) Akin to those also is the distinction between an unconscious, or physical, or ”natural” end, and a conscious, or mental, or ”intentional”
end. The former is that towards which the nature or ”_appet.i.tus naturalis_” of unconscious agencies tends; the latter is an end apprehended by a conscious agent.
(_d_) An end may be either _ultimate_ or _proximate_ or _intermediate_. An ultimate end is one which is sought for its own sake, as contrasted with an intermediate end which is willed rather as a means to the former, and with a proximate end which is intended last and sought first as a means to realizing the others. It should be noted that proximate and intermediate ends, in so far as they are sought for the sake of some ulterior end, are not ends at all but rather means; only in so far as they present some good desirable for its own sake, are they properly ends, or final causes.
Furthermore, an ultimate end may be such absolutely or relatively: absolutely if it cannot possibly be subordinated or referred to any ulterior or higher good; relatively if, though ultimate in a particular order as compared with means leading up to it, it is nevertheless capable of being subordinated to a higher good, though not actually referred to this latter by any explicit volition of the agent that seeks it.
(_e_) We can regard the end for which an agent acts either _objectively_,-_finis_ ”_objectivus_,”-or _formally_,-_finis_ ”_formalis_”. The former is the objective good itself which the agent wishes to realize, possess or enjoy; the latter is the act whereby the agent formally secures, appropriates, unites himself with, this objective good. Thus, G.o.d Himself is the objective happiness (_beat.i.tudo objectiva_) of man, while man's actual possession of, or union with, G.o.d, by knowledge and love, is man's formal happiness (_beat.i.tudo formalis_).
<script>