|Causation, Philosophy: It is difficult to locate influences that can be clearly defined as causes for concrete physical processes. The difficulty is also based on the fact that most authors of philosophy share an accepted skepticism concerning the observability of causality. (cf. D. Hume, An enquiry concerning human understanding, Oxford, 2000 und D. Hume, A treatise of human nature, Oxford 2007). See also single-case causation, causality, cause, causal explanation, best explanation, explanation, conditions, sufficiency, necessity, causal dependence, counterfactual dependence._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Books on Amazon
Necessity/Causation/Armstrong: 1) irreflexive: Nothing causes itself, relative to itself no relation - 2) nontransitive: cause is not transmitted, but a new universal, even probability = 1, requires new law - 3) allows no contra-position (reversal), the effect cannot be the cause of the cause - 4) not symmetric, special case: causes in chain, but not reverse causality, merely necessary "precondition"
Chain of causes not reverse causality, only: each state has a necessary condition - Conditions do not cause! - Analogy: Laws of nature do not order anything - therefore causal laws only a subclass of laws of nature.
Constitution is not causation - (> part/whole) -_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
AR II = Disp
D. M. Armstrong
Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996
What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983