P
psymont
Guest
SK carries on and on about this philisophical belief, so for those that dont know, here is the definition for the "laws of causality"
Causality
Causality, in philosophy, relationship of a cause to its effect. Aristotle enumerated four
different kinds of causes: the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final. The
material cause is what anything is made of, for example, brass or marble is the material
cause of a given statue. The formal cause is the form, type, or pattern according to
which anything is made; thus, the style of architecture would be the formal cause of a
house. The efficient cause is the immediate power acting to produce the work, such as
the manual energy of the laborers. The final cause is the end or motive for the sake of
which the work is produced, that is, the pleasure of the owner. The principles that
Aristotle outlined formed the basis of the modern scientific concept that specific stimuli
will produce standard results under controlled conditions. Other Greek philosophers,
particularly the skeptic Sextus Empiricus (circa 200-50), attacked the principles of
causality.
Rival Notions
In early modern philosophy, Aristotle's laws of causality were again challenged,
resulting in two rival notions of cause. The French philosopher and mathematician
Ren‚ Descartes and his school made cause identical with substance. The physical
scientists often had a mechanical view of causality, reducing cause to a motion or
change followed by other motion or change with a mathematical equality between
measures of motion. The British philosopher David Hume carried to a logical
conclusion the contention of Sextus Empiricus that causality is not a real relation, but a
fiction of the mind. To account for the origin of this fiction Hume used the doctrine of
association.
Hume's explanation of cause led the German philosopher Immanuel Kant to posit cause
as a fundamental category of understanding. Kant held that the only knowable objective
world is the product of a synthetic activity of the mind. He accepted Hume's skeptical
result as far as it concerned itself with the world of things-in-themselves. Dissatisfied,
however, with the concept that experience is only a succession of perceptions without
any discoverable relationship or coherence, Kant decided that causality is one of the
principles of coherence obtaining in the world of phenomena, and that it is universally
present there because thought, as part of its contribution to the nature of that world,
always puts it there.
The British philosopher John Stuart Mill took up the problem at this point. He denied
the fundamental postulate of Kant's transcendentalism, namely, that thought is
responsible for the order of this world. Mill sought to justify belief in universal
causation on empiricist principles; for him, a proposition is meaningful only if it
describes what can be experienced.
Modern Directions
Along with the method of empiricism as the source of all knowledge goes a definition of
cause that is widely accepted today. The cause of any event is a preceding event without
which the event in question would not have occurred. This is a mechanistic view of
causality popular in scientific circles. All the previous events would constitute the
complete cause.
Many philosophers deny the ultimate reality, or at least the fundamental validity, of the
causal relation. Thus, the American philosopher Josiah Royce maintained that the
category of serial order, of which the category of cause is a particular case, is itself
subordinate to the ultimate category of purpose. The French philosopher Henri Bergson
maintained that ultimate reality or life is not bound by exact causal sequences. It is a
process of growth in which the unpredictable, and therefore the uncaused, constantly
occurs. No exact repetition happens in real time; and where there is no repetition, there
is no cause, for cause means the antecedent that repeatedly is followed by the same
consequence.
Bibliographic entry: B25.
"Causality," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1993 Microsoft Corporation.
Copyright (c) 1993 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation
Causality
Causality, in philosophy, relationship of a cause to its effect. Aristotle enumerated four
different kinds of causes: the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final. The
material cause is what anything is made of, for example, brass or marble is the material
cause of a given statue. The formal cause is the form, type, or pattern according to
which anything is made; thus, the style of architecture would be the formal cause of a
house. The efficient cause is the immediate power acting to produce the work, such as
the manual energy of the laborers. The final cause is the end or motive for the sake of
which the work is produced, that is, the pleasure of the owner. The principles that
Aristotle outlined formed the basis of the modern scientific concept that specific stimuli
will produce standard results under controlled conditions. Other Greek philosophers,
particularly the skeptic Sextus Empiricus (circa 200-50), attacked the principles of
causality.
Rival Notions
In early modern philosophy, Aristotle's laws of causality were again challenged,
resulting in two rival notions of cause. The French philosopher and mathematician
Ren‚ Descartes and his school made cause identical with substance. The physical
scientists often had a mechanical view of causality, reducing cause to a motion or
change followed by other motion or change with a mathematical equality between
measures of motion. The British philosopher David Hume carried to a logical
conclusion the contention of Sextus Empiricus that causality is not a real relation, but a
fiction of the mind. To account for the origin of this fiction Hume used the doctrine of
association.
Hume's explanation of cause led the German philosopher Immanuel Kant to posit cause
as a fundamental category of understanding. Kant held that the only knowable objective
world is the product of a synthetic activity of the mind. He accepted Hume's skeptical
result as far as it concerned itself with the world of things-in-themselves. Dissatisfied,
however, with the concept that experience is only a succession of perceptions without
any discoverable relationship or coherence, Kant decided that causality is one of the
principles of coherence obtaining in the world of phenomena, and that it is universally
present there because thought, as part of its contribution to the nature of that world,
always puts it there.
The British philosopher John Stuart Mill took up the problem at this point. He denied
the fundamental postulate of Kant's transcendentalism, namely, that thought is
responsible for the order of this world. Mill sought to justify belief in universal
causation on empiricist principles; for him, a proposition is meaningful only if it
describes what can be experienced.
Modern Directions
Along with the method of empiricism as the source of all knowledge goes a definition of
cause that is widely accepted today. The cause of any event is a preceding event without
which the event in question would not have occurred. This is a mechanistic view of
causality popular in scientific circles. All the previous events would constitute the
complete cause.
Many philosophers deny the ultimate reality, or at least the fundamental validity, of the
causal relation. Thus, the American philosopher Josiah Royce maintained that the
category of serial order, of which the category of cause is a particular case, is itself
subordinate to the ultimate category of purpose. The French philosopher Henri Bergson
maintained that ultimate reality or life is not bound by exact causal sequences. It is a
process of growth in which the unpredictable, and therefore the uncaused, constantly
occurs. No exact repetition happens in real time; and where there is no repetition, there
is no cause, for cause means the antecedent that repeatedly is followed by the same
consequence.
Bibliographic entry: B25.
"Causality," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1993 Microsoft Corporation.
Copyright (c) 1993 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation
) blablabla