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.