Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Now and Then
Message-ID: <3947@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 13-Aug-84 20:02:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3947
Posted: Mon Aug 13 20:02:21 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Aug-84 02:02:50 EDT
References: <218@imsvax.UUCP>, <716@ariel.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 18

Or, putting it slightly differently, the traditional view of
cause-and-effect is that one action causes another action; an
alternative viewpoint is that actions result from entities
being subject to particular environmental conditions and
responding according to their natures.  This avoids the
endless backward causal chain problem (and the "prime mover").
(Hume avoids the problem by reducing causality to correlation,
which makes it a very uncertain proposition; see following.)

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).

Glad to hear that there is someone else out there who does not
swallow the conventional philosophical "wisdom" whole.