Bowker and Starr’s discussion on classification and standards in “Sorting Things Out” led me to think about Aristotle’s 4 Causes, which he sees as an effective way of understanding objects in the world. This appears to be a more abstract but flexible way of thinking about objects in context, which would subsequently aid in its classification. The equation is as follows-
Material Cause + Formal Cause+ Efficient Cause= Final Cause
This is in contrast to a classification system with categories that are mutually exclusive- the article mentions that “a rose is a rose, not a rose sometimes and a daisy at other times”. Intuitively, this makes sense as distinct categories enable us to better identify things by reference to their specific properties. However, this seems to me to pose a problem in an age where knowledge is in flux and we look to gather information about an object as it morphs over time. While this may not always be the case for historical and archiving purposes, it is interesting to examine how classification works for objects that are highly susceptible to the progression of time and across worlds.
For instance, a rose bud differs from a blossomed or withered rose in that they are all in varied stages of development. Each stage of development in a rose will have, appended to it, a specific set of properties that are different and distinct. Yet a classification system would not be able to capture this progression and merely classify it under “rose”. This issue is exacerbated when placed in the context of the 4 Causes, as each type of rose would have a different material, formal and efficient cause, leading to a different final cause.
Material Cause: what constitutes the object (A rose consists of a thorny stem and veiny petals made of plant matter)
Formal Cause- the ratio or general form an object takes (A rose is 90% stem and 10% flower)
Efficient Cause: the thing that motivates creation/ change (pollination is the efficient cause of roses growing)
Final Cause: the aim or purpose it serves. (A rose is an organ for plant reproduction and an ornamental object)
This sort of ambiguity is one caused by a definitive change in properties of the object, as opposed to an ambiguity regarding the categories of classification a rose should fall into. This demonstrates that classification at its present stage is capable only of registering static information. While Aristotle’s system seems to account also for standards (as opposed to classification) that are able to withstand the test of time, his system is one that has standards relative to a specific object’s constituents, rather than taking these object’s constituents as change over time.
Since a withered rose has a different material, formal and efficient cause from a rosebud or a blossoming rose, Aristotle’s system would still consider the blossoming rose and withered rose to be two different things. If this is the case, how would we be able to prove and track (via either method of classification) that it was the same rose that blossomed and withered? In broader terms, how are our systems of classification working to address the idea that two objects cannot be proven to be one and same object when its properties and standards have morphed over time?
The funny thing, though, is that Aristotle’s 4 Causes continue to influence our notions of classification and standards now. This makes me curious as to the possibility of developing “real time” classification systems that can grow and track changes in the data of the object it describes.