Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!ism780b!jim From: jim@ism780b.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Now and Then - (nf) Message-ID: <60@ism780b.UUCP> Date: Sat, 18-Aug-84 00:15:15 EDT Article-I.D.: ism780b.60 Posted: Sat Aug 18 00:15:15 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Aug-84 13:43:58 EDT Lines: 69 #R:decwrl:-311300:ism780b:27500039:000:3232 ism780b!jim Aug 16 20:15:00 1984 >Or, putting it slightly differently, the traditional view of >cause-and-effect is that one action causes another action; But what does it *mean* for one action to *cause* another action? This says nothing. >an >alternative viewpoint is that actions result from entities >being subject to particular environmental conditions and >responding according to their natures. How is an entity identified, and what is its environment? In what way is an entity subject to its environment? If the entity and the environment are separate, how does the environment go about affecting the entity? What is the nature of an entity? How is it identified other than by its causal interactions? What does this really say? >This avoids the >endless backward causal chain problem (and the "prime mover"). How so? To avoid the "prime mover" I would think requires accepting that the causal chain extends infinitely into the past, or accepting the universe's right to behave capriciously, and substitute "prime mover" with "prime spontaneous event". Causative behavior due to inherent nature plus a finite causal chain seems to me to imply a first cause. >(Hume avoids the problem by reducing causality to correlation, >which makes it a very uncertain proposition; see following.) Since we can only observe correlations, but not inherent natures, this seems pretty rock-solid to me. Causation is as certain as the universe chooses to make it. As long as the correlations hold perfectly, it is certain. But what possible argument can you make for a claim that the laws of the universe won't be totally different tomorrow? Do you see that saying "because they have always worked that way" assumes the conclusion? >Kant's analytic-synthetic dichotomy amounts to a declaration that >reality is inherently unknowable and that the things we can be >certain about do not express anything about reality. Even if one >is not fully up on this stuff he should be able to appreciate >that acceptance of such a dichotomy would hamper one's ability to >function effectively in the "real world" (whatever that is). It is a matter of the definition of "know". All you need are beliefs which have reasonable predictive ability in order to function. I can know that 2+2=4, which is totally independent of the particular nature of reality, although I never would have gotten around to finding that analytical truth without having synthesized it from aspects of reality. I can believe very strongly that the sun will rise tomorrow, although I can't possibly know it. Kant accepted his dichotomy without it hampering his ability to function in the "real" world, so I find statements like yours very strange. >Glad to hear that there is someone else out there who does not >swallow the conventional philosophical "wisdom" whole. This is the same line you take with cosmology, and it rings of Von Daniken. I am also against people swallowing things whole, but I see little evidence that most philosophers who share a position with other philosophers, whether conventional or not, got there with any less deep thought and analysis or more sheeplike behavior than what led you or people you happen to agree with to your positions. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)