|
13921
|
All things must have an essence (a 'what it is'), or we would be unable to think about them [Lowe]
|
|
Full Idea:
Things must have an essence, in the sense of 'what it is to be the individual of that kind', or it would make no sense to say we can talk or think comprehendingly about things at all. If we don't know what it is, how can we think about it?
|
|
From:
E.J. Lowe (Two Notions of Being: Entity and Essence [2008], 2)
|
|
A reaction:
Lowe presents this as a sort of Master Argument for essences. I think he is working with the wrong notion of essence. All he means is that things must have identities to be objects of thought. Why equate identity with essence, and waste a good concept?
|
|
20062
|
If a desire leads to a satisfactory result by an odd route, the causal theory looks wrong [Chisholm]
|
|
Full Idea:
If someone wants to kill his uncle to inherit a fortune, and having this desire makes him so agitated that he loses control of his car and kills a pedestrian, who turns out to be his uncle, the conditions of the causal theory seem to be satisfied.
|
|
From:
Roderick Chisholm (Freedom and Action [1966]), quoted by Rowland Stout - Action 6 'Deviant'
|
|
A reaction:
This line of argument has undermined all sorts of causal theories that were fashionable in the 1960s and 70s. Explanation should lead to understanding, but a deviant causal chain doesn't explain the outcome. The causal theory can be tightened.
|
|
20054
|
There has to be a brain event which is not caused by another event, but by the agent [Chisholm]
|
|
Full Idea:
There must be some event A, presumably some cerebral event, which is not caused by any other event, but by the agent.
|
|
From:
Roderick Chisholm (Freedom and Action [1966], p.20), quoted by Rowland Stout - Action 4 'Agent'
|
|
A reaction:
I'm afraid this thought strikes me as quaintly ridiculous. What kind of metaphysics can allow causation outside the natural nexus, yet occuring within the physical brain? This is a relic of religious dualism. Let it go.
|
|
8430
|
Causal statements are used to explain, to predict, to control, to attribute responsibility, and in theories [Kim]
|
|
Full Idea:
The function of causal statements is 1) to explain events, 2) for predictive usefulness, 3) to help control events, 4) with agents, to attribute moral responsibility, 5) in physical theory. We should judge causal theories by how they account for these.
|
|
From:
Jaegwon Kim (Causes and Counterfactuals [1973], p.207)
|
|
A reaction:
He suggests that Lewis's counterfactual theory won't do well on this test. I think the first one is what matters. Philosophy aims to understand, and that is achieved through explanation. Regularity and counterfactual theories explain very little.
|
|
8429
|
Counterfactuals can express four other relations between events, apart from causation [Kim]
|
|
Full Idea:
Counterfactuals can express 'analytical' dependency, or the fact that one event is part of another, or an action done by doing another, or (most interestingly) an event can determine another without causally determining it.
|
|
From:
Jaegwon Kim (Causes and Counterfactuals [1973], p.205)
|
|
A reaction:
[Kim gives example of each case] Counterfactuals can even express a relation that involves no dependency. Or they might just involve redescription, as in 'If Scott were still alive, then the author of "Waverley" would be too'.
|
|
4781
|
Many counterfactual truths do not imply causation ('if yesterday wasn't Monday, it isn't Tuesday') [Kim, by Psillos]
|
|
Full Idea:
Kim gives a range of examples of counterfactual dependence without causation, as: 'if yesterday wasn't Monday, today wouldn't be Tuesday', and 'if my sister had not given birth, I would not be an uncle'.
|
|
From:
report of Jaegwon Kim (Causes and Counterfactuals [1973]) by Stathis Psillos - Causation and Explanation §3.3
|
|
A reaction:
This is aimed at David Lewis. The objection seems like commonsense. "If you blink, the cat gets it". Causal claims involve counterfactuals, but they are not definitive of what causation is.
|