Tfw you realize Aristotelian formal and final causality is true

It's better to read the original. Some people can see the deeper connections from references simply because they have a huge field of knowledge already, but I very much doubt that either of us would be able to do that.

And even then it would be preferable to read the original so that you can make your own references, in case they missed something.

for me, it's Plato and Berkeley

Essentially that, the universe behaves exactly as is substantial forms and formal and final causality existed. Trying to explain things such as causality and change without reference to these concepts is practically impossible without reducing your entire system to absurdity.

For instance, trying to explain why certain things such as fire have consistent properties (such as the need for oxygen) and why they behave in the same way and act on objects in the same way is very hard to do without referencing the above concepts. Trying to say that fire requires oxygen in every instance of it by chance is insane to me

you know Aquinas abandoned the Summa for a reason right?

How can you reconcile agreement with Aristotle's formal cause (which does NOT posit a distinct being) with the belief of Forms (which ARE distinct identities, and which are outright rejected repeatedly throughout the Organon), and conclude that God exists?

>X squared is 25, we have 25, it's root is what?
Simple math will offer an alternative way of looking at it. Some events can lead to many different results, or some results can come from many different sources. However, each and every one of them is logical. Most such issues can be solved by increasing the complexity of your models. It's not exactly absurd, your model is what was absurd.

For instance, the reality we have encompasses everything. Colors, feelings, energy, dreams, lies... You can clog your brain easily by trying to have a model that explains everything. You need some pragmatism.

Hope this helped.

>its root is what?*

I should clarify that I do not believe in forms in the platonic sense, as in I do not believe they really exist in some 3rd abstract realm. Why doesent formal causality posit a distinct being though? Isn't the formal cause of a thing just that, its form or essence? And due to the act/potency limitations in all essences I dont see how they would not be distinct.

I believe in a God mainly due to how I think that causality works, as explained within the Aristotelian Scholastic system.

Sorry, on a revisiting of what I had in mind as the relevant passage, Aristotle doesn't outright reject Platonic forms (or any other distinct being of "formality") but rather says they don't necessarily exist:

>For there to be forms or some one thing apart from the many is not necessary if there is to be demonstration; however, for it to be true to say that one thing holds of many is necessary. For there will be no universal if this is not the case; and if there is no universal, there will be no middle term, and so no demonstration either.
(An. Post. 77a5)

I could have sworn that Aristotle flat out rejects the Forms as something distinct and having independent existence, but I can't find it and could be wrong; I've only just started working on him and the Organon a few weeks ago.

What may be relevant to the discussion, if not exactly to Aristotle's conception of his Causes, is that Platonic Forms (and so maybe A's Formal Cause) are considered by some scholars to not, after all, be distinct beings, but rather sort of "functions" which determine how a thing manifests. But maybe that's an Aristotelian reading at the expense of Platonism?

>how I think that causality works, as explained within the Aristotelian Scholastic system.

Could you shed some light on this? I'm not contesting the point, I've just never heard of it. Like I said I just started Aristotle, and all I've read of Aquinas is his commentary on the posterior analytics.

Read Leibniz

three dialogues between hylas and philonious