/lit/ - Literature

Why does Aristotle say in his theory of the four causes that the formal cause is often identified with the final cause? By positing this, he posits an immanent character of finality in creatures that seems to me difficult to justify. I understand that the assumption is necessary from the point of view of an Aristotelian naturalism, but it is more natural to reason to assume a transcendent chain of finalities than finalities whose purpose lies in an essence, and even more so if the essence is contingent.
How should we understand the place of essence in Aristotle's metaphysical structure in order to give more coherence to his position ?

The reasons that can help to make the modern world appreciable are exactly the consequences of those that make it detestable. What the anti-moderns regret is above all the disappearance of a traditional form of relationship to the world. Traditionally, a man is placed in the world, he perceives analogies between beings, he works and sweats for his community and his beloved family, he enjoys himself at festivals and grieves at funerals in an authentic way, his spiritual master offers him keys to read the world and teaches him how to reach eternal bliss, he knows how to find deep meaning and quality in what he sees in the world.
On the contrary, modernity reverses and subverts this mode of being and in the contemporary world there are only mechanical relationships between things, man is in himself for himself so that he never has fun and never grieves except virtually, he no longer has spirituality and therefore no morals, hope and blue sky, in short he has lost the sense of meaning and he only perceives quantitative and arbitrary relationships between beings.