This is part of an assignment, but I find myself stumped on how to even approach the question. Perhaps someone could steer me in the right direction.
In regard to the Four Causes, Aristotle's aition can be translated as either "explanation" or "cause". The question I need to write about is asking me: which of the two terms does a better job at capturing what Aristotle's division of four kinds of aition is a division of?
Since the question is asking which term is more suited in describing the four causes I'm leaning toward "explanation". The term "cause" in most everyday use implies some sort of triggering or motivating force as it were (efficient cause). It feels sort of lacking but I can't quite pin it down. If we were to use the two terms in a final causation example about good health and walking, we could say "Health caused him to start walking," or "Health explains why he started walking," I tend to favor "explanation" since it seems like a broader term whereas "cause" feels too active (for want of a better term), and sort of one-dimensional given how complicated 'why' questions can be (esp final causes)? What about a material cause example, "Q:Why is the statue green? A:The nature of copper, such that it is, caused it to be green." Doesn't explanation seem more suitable?
I'm just a laymen, and I'm not asking for someone to do my homework. I'm just lost and would appreciate some guidance.