Abstract

The question of the causality exercised by active mind cannot be dismissed as an attempt to go beyond what Aristotle explicitly says. One cannot say that Aristotle proves the existence of active mind but leaves the kind of causality it exercises an open question. Rather, if one accepts that Aristotle proves the existence of active mind, one must have an answer for the kind of causality it exercises. The analysis of De Anima, 3.5 shows that the principle on which the argument for the existence of active mind rests cannot be read as arguing coherently for the existence of active mind as an efficient cause, but that the text is open to an interpretation along the lines of final causality