Causation is the relation between cause and effect, or the act of bringing about an effect, which may be an event, a state, or an object. The concept of causation has long been recognized as one of the fundamental philosophical importance. Hume called it the “cement of the universe”: causation is the relation that connects events and objects of this world in significant relationships. Further, causation is intimately related to explanation: to ask for an explanation of an event is, to ask for its cause. But according to Richard Taylor, causation is not that simple and discoverable relationship between states, processes and events. “What we want, then, is a conceptual analysis of this basic concept [causation] we so securely possess.”
For Taylor, there are two things about our manner of expressing such causal relationships in common speech:
1. An object or substance seems often to be referred to as a cause.
2. Each of objects seems to be alleged to have done something, in the same sense in which men, for example, are often described as doing various things.
So what is the real cause in this example: “a cigarette started this fire”? Obviously there are some agents to impel it. There should be some people who smoked there, somebody then throw his half-smoked cigarette toward a haystack before driving away. A few minutes later, a wind could blow hard to make a fire. By using the theory of agency, Lawrence Davis proposed a notion of direct causation which is that every action involves direct causation of an event by an agent. Taylor, however, goes further by conceiving that some causal chains have beginnings and those chains start with agents themselves. Some other authors think that Taylor only concentrates on the agent is the...
... middle of paper ...
...me other which it could also produce? That is the answer of final cause for every agent acts for an end. We need efficient cause to intent the final cause but the final cause has a character of good for the agent.
To conclude, the medieval lovers of wisdom talked about causation, Taylor talks about its explanation. For the medieval philosophers' principle of causality, Taylor uses the principle of sufficient reason. Taylor is following a tradition begun in early modern philosophy and then develops his theory of action and purpose. Taylor's Principle of Sufficient Reason states that for every positive truth, there is a reason why it is so, rather than not. Besides, W.Norris Clarke uses two of the 4 causes of Aristotle as his explanation for what makes (who) and why beings have their character as unity (the one) but at the same time different as diversity (the many).
Hume’s notion of causation is his regularity theory. Hume explains his regularity theory in two ways: (1) “we may define a cause to be an object, followed by another, and where all the objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second” (2) “if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.”
Philosophers have developed many different theories to explain the existence and behavior of “free will.” This classical debate has created two main family trees of theories, with multiple layers and overlapping. It all begins with Determinist and Indeterminist theories. Simply put, determinists believe that our choices are determined by circumstance, and that the freedom to make our own decisions does not exist. Indeterminists, for example Libertarians, believe that we are free to make our own choices; these choices are not determined by other factors, like prior events. In class, we began the discussion of free will, and the competing arguments of Determinists and Indeterminists, with the works of Roderick Chisholm, a libertarian who made
...dson, ‘Thinking Causes’, in Mental Causation, ed. John Heil and Alfred Mele (Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1993) p. 13.
From scientific revolution to our current era of Enlightenment to the emergence of skepticism, cause and effect kept playing a great role in leading scientists and philosophers to move forward. Consequently, Voltaire’s attack of cause and effect seemed to be gossamer and powerless since in our daily life, cause and effect can help us understand things that happen in our life and its impact on everyone living in Enlightenment cannot be overlooked.
Free will, is having the ability to act based on our own desires and choosing which desires we would like to act on. In the philosophical field of Metaphysics this definition is the most universal way we discuss free will. When we think of the phrase free will, we think of the choices we make that impact our lives. Are our decisions really our own or are they products of outside forces? Is our destiny predetermined by nature? Can small choices such as raising your hand become an example of free will or is it more intricate than that? What constitutes free will is a continuous argument that consist of various ideas on what acting freely is really defined as. Most arguments on free will attempt to negotiate the relationship between moral
In this paper I will present an argument I have found in the Second Analogy for the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event. I will begin by briefly describing Robert Paul W...
1. What pieces of data does Taylor think we must account for in debates about free will? Why does he think they are significant?
In order to make sense of the ambiguous and complicated world we live in we need a way in which to perceive phenomena. For any given event there could be numerous causes, and instinctively we choose the cause of most significance. These causes are generally ones that represents a humanlike agent. As these agents are not always easy to detect - we often assume there is a humanlike agent behind phenomena regardless of whether we can identify their presence. He notes that Wegner and Mar and Marcae propose we are inclined to see agency even in things such a geometric figures or 'abstract non living
Cause and effect is a tool used to link happenings together and create some sort of explanation. Hume lists the “three principles of connexion among ideas” to show the different ways ideas can be associated with one another (14). The principles are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. The focus of much of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding falls upon the third listed principle. In Section I, Hume emphasizes the need to uncover the truths about the human mind, even though the process may be strenuous and fatiguing. While the principle of cause and effect is something utilized so often, Hume claims that what we conclude through this process cannot be attributed to reason or understanding and instead must be attributed to custom of habit.
In order to go beyond the objects of human reason, Hume proposed that reasoning was based upon cause and effect. Causal relations help us to know things beyond our immediate vicinity. All of our knowledge is based on experience. Therefore, we need experience to come to causal relationships of the world and experience constant conjunction. Hume stated that he “shall venture to affirm, as a general proposition which admits no exception, that the knowledge of this relation is not in any instance, attained by reasonings ‘a priori’, but arises entirely from experience.” (42)
David Hume’s two definitions of cause found in both A Treatise of Human Nature, and An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding have been the center of much controversy in regards to his actual view of causation. Much of the debate centers on the lack of consistency between the two definitions and also with the definitions as a part of the greater text. As for the latter objection, much of the inconsistency can be remedied by sticking to the account presented in the Enquiry, as Hume makes explicit in the Author’s Advertisement that the Treatise was a “work which the Author [Hume] had projected before he left College, and which he wrote and published not long after. But not finding it successful, he was sensible of his error in going to the press to early, and he cast the whole anew in the following pieces, where some negligence in his former reasoning and more in the expression, are, he hopes, corrected.” (Hume 1772, xxxi) Generally the inconsistencies are cited from the Treatise, which fails to recognize the purpose of the Enquiry. This brings us to the possible tension between the two definitions. J.A. Robinson, for example, believes the two definitions cannot refer to the same thing. Don Garrett feels that the two definitions are possible, but only with further interpretation. I will argue that the tension arises from a possible forgetfulness on the part of the reader about Hume’s aims as a philosopher, and that Hume’s Enquiry stands on its own without any need for a critic’s extrapolations. To understand Hume’s interpretation of causation and the arguments against it, we must first follow the steps Hume took to come to his conclusion. This requires brief consideration of Hume’s copy princi...
The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions are on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by Necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event are because of some prior cause. This causation may be by an external driving force, such as a divine power, or simply a chain of events leading up to a specific moment. The problem is then further divided into those believing the two may both exist, compatibilism, or one cannot exist with the other, incompatibilism. In his work, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume presents an argument for the former, believing it is possible for both Free Will and Necessity to exist simultaneously. This presentation in favor of compatibilism, which he refers to as the reconciling problem, is founded on a fundamental understanding of knowledge and causation, which are supported by other empiricists such as John Locke. Throughout this paper, I will be analyzing and supporting Hume’s argument for compatibilism. I will also be defending his work from select arguments against his theory. Because causation and both conditions for human freedom exist, Hume is able to argue everything is determined and Free Will is possible.
Metaphysics, as discussed by Richard Taylor, can be defined as the effort to think clearly. In order to contemplate a metaphysical issue, we require data (the common beliefs that people hold about that issue). A metaphysical problem occurs when such data do not agree. To resolve the problem, a theory must be established which removes the conflict by either (a) reconciling the conflicting data, or (b) proving one set of data to be false. Metaphysical thought has inspired many theories that attempt to address the conflicting data of determinism and freedom. Freedom, as defined by Hume, is "the ability to act according to the determinations of the will". Freedom allows for moral responsibility.
To understand Kant’s account on causality, it is important to first understand that this account came into being as a response to Hume’s skepticism, and therefore important to also understand Hume’s account. While Hume thinks that causation comes from repeated experiences of events happening together or following one another, Kant believes that causation is just a function of our minds’ organization of experiences rather than from the actual experiences themselves.
It is important to be able to distinguish scientific, philosophical, religious, and speculative explanations and causes apart from each other. To be able to discern the four apart we need to first understand what they are and what their purpose is.