The claim that I have picked to analyze and decide whether I agree, disagree or partially agree and disagree talks about the Humean definition of causality. The claim being made is that the Humean definition of causality is correct. Hume defines causality as “some is only called an effected because it observed to be constantly conjoined with something that proceeds it in time.” To understand this claim, you need to put it in your own words. This claim states that for there to be an effect, you have to have something that causes the effect to happen. In other words, for there to be an effect, there needs to be a cause that happens right before in time which leads to the effect. Hume goes in to discuss this claim with the example of the collision of the two billiard balls. Hume recalls his event by describing the story and how there “is a billiard-ball lying on the table, and another ball moving towards it with rapidity. They strike; and the ball, which was formerly at rest, now acquires a motion. This is as perfect an instance of the relation of cause and effect as any which we know, either by sensation or by reflection.” Here you can see Hume’s claim by understanding that the ball that was at rest was moved into motion because of the other ball coming and hitting it. For the ball at rest to move, the other ball that hit it was its cause which meant the ball at rest moving was the effect. If you read Stathis Psillos Causation and Explanation, the reader can see how everything is broken down and understood. Hume is considered to have taken a reductive account on the topic of causality which can be called the Regularity View of Causation or RVC. Regularity View of Causation is, “c causes e if, c is spatiotemporally contiguous to e; e succeeds c in time; and all events type C (I.e., events that are like c) are regularly followed by (or are constantly conjoined with) events of type E (i.e. events like e).” After reading the meaning of RVC, readers can be confused with what it actually means since there are some many different aspects to the definition of RVC. To understand this, RVC has to be broken down and used in the own words of a reader. If “C” is caused by “E”, this means that C has a direct impact on E and that C is the reason why E is the effect because in causality you have a cause and effect. C is related to E as defined as spatiotemporally which means it “belongs to the both space and time or to space-time.” That means that C and E are both existing amongst each other. Then you have the next step in which E takes over for C in that time, which means that E follows after C. An example to understand this with leaders and when you have a new leader, the new leader succeeds the old which means follows after him. The last part of RVC is when anything that occurs with C happen to E right after or during the same time. This means that if something of the same event takes place with C, then it also comes to take place with E right after or does it during the same time. If you go back and use Hume’s example of the billiard ball and how the second ball moved because of the first and break it down into RVC the reader can understand RVC. The second ball is in the same space as the first and it succeeds the first ball in its time. It then is a part of all the event that the first ball in and it follows right after the first ball hits it which causes the second ball to move.
The claim, “the Humean definition of causality is correct” is true. I do agree with the claim that is being made I do think that this claim is fully correct. It is not partially correct, but it is fully correct because there are different reasons on why this claim is true. The issue that Hume’s is addressing is the issue of causality and whether Hume’s is correct with his definition of causality. The biggest issue or problem being answered in this claim is whether there is a succeeding force that promotes the secondary action of cause and effect to occur. To better explain this, you have to understand that the issues that can be brought up is how does effect have a relation to cause. Does there need to be different aspects of this to occur? To go back into the example of the billiard balls, the biggest problem that can be brought is whether there is a correlation with the two balls. Does the first ball have any relation to the second ball and if the second ball is actually taking over the first ball? A major issue that was brought about by causality was presented by Willlard Van Orman Quine who said that “the trouble with causations is, as Hume pointed out, that there is no evident way of distinguishing it from mere invariable succession”. This question is also brought up by philosopher Bertrand Russell when he states that We must ask ourselves: when we assume causation, do we assume a specific relation, cause-and-effect, or do we merely assume invariable sequence? That is to say, when I assert “every event of class A causes an event of class B”, do I mean merely “every event of class A is followed by an event of class B”, or do I mean something more? Before Hume the latter view was always taken; since Hume, most empiricists have taken the former. From the collection of philosophers that have responded to this the reader can see the problems that need to be answered by causality. Before Hume’s definition there was no clear answer to causality and to why there is cause and effect. Imagine if there is no answer to the problem that is at present and that Hume did not have a definition to define causality and there was no clear interpertation to cause and effect. As from what Quine said, without Hume’s definition you would not be able to distinguish the succession of these items. Effect would be brought upon a cause but it would be hard to understand what necessarily that means. A. J. Ayer points this out when he states that “In nature one thing just happens after another. Cause and effect have their place only in our imaginative arrangements and extensions of these primary facts.” Here you see that nature just happens and that there are no reasons why “it happens”. It is a part of a process with no explanation and is part of “imaginative arrangements” and are just extensions of facts. These are problems that Hume’s definition of causality answers and this why I agree with the definition of causality by Hume’s because he is able to correctly answer the problem in my opinion.
This is where Hume goes in to answer these questions and issues that are present into to detail to help the reader understand. Before going into Hume’s definition, one must understand The Law of Causation. The Law of Causation as defined by Merriam Webster, is “a principle in philosophy in which every change in nature is produced by some cause.” Here the reader can see that the law of causation is stating that for there to be an effect, it comes from a cause. Which in term is going synonymous to what Hume’s was stating when the effect is a succession of the cause and that you can see this in the Regularity View of Causation. If you go back to the first part of this argument, you can see that the billiard ball in motion was brought up and explained. Hume’s explains this movement of the two balls by stating that the “two balls touched one another before the motion was communicated, and that there were no interval betwixt the shock of the motion.” Here Hume’s finds where two events are related and which is the same as cause and effect and that there are categories to which these are why which is contiguity, priority and constant conjunction. Hume’s explains each category by comparing it with the example of the billiard ball being in motion. Hume’s states that,
“Contiguity in time and place is therefore a requisite circumstance to the operation of all causes. ’Tis evident likewise, that the motion, which was the cause, is prior to the motion, which was the effect. Priority in time, is therefore another requisite circumstance in every cause. But this is not all. Let us try any other balls of the same kind in a like situation, and we shall always find, that the impulse of the one produces motion in the other. Here therefore is a third circumstance, viz., that is a constant conjunction betwixt the cause and effect. Every object like the cause, pro- duces always some object like the effect.”
Here the three categories are coming together to and that these are the reasons for cause and effect and to come together and have a relation. All of these categories are requisite circumstances which means they are necessary circumstances to get the end result. Take away these categories and you have no clear answer to distinction that Quine mentioned earlier. With the explanation of the categories gives the reader a clear understanding on what issues are being addressed with the definition. The categories give a better explanation to the issue with Quine mentioned about not being able to distinguish it from mere invariable succession. With contiguity, priority and constant conjunction, one can see that causality can’t be just invariable successions and that there are steps that occur for this succession to take place. The misconception that people have with Hume’s definition is that “Hume’s predecessors thought there were also necessary connections to be found in nature.” They believe that the element of necessity is what is needed for the cause which produces the effect which is which follows the cause. They believed that cause causes the effect and that with virtue that produces cause it also is a necessity for effect. This is where Hume’s does not find in causation. He believes that necessity is not a place in nature and that necessity is not something that exist in objects, but it is something that exists in the mind. From here the reader can see that there is no necessity in causation and that it is just an existence of the mind. If you analyze this, you can see how necessity is part of the mind and not part of the object and that for necessity in nature is not something you need to look at for causation because causation is an extension of nature. Hume’s was interested in studying causation because of those problems and issues that needed to be answered. Hume’s believed that the reasoning that concerned the fact of matter was founded with the relation of cause and effect. Because of this, you can’t decide that there is an existence from one thing to another unless you grind a connected factor that brings them together mediately or immediately. Hume’s believes that everyone should be aquatinted with the idea of a cause. Hume’s then goes two explain how cause is made up of two things which help answer the question on causality and help solidify the definition that Hume’s was stating. Hume’s believes that “His project has two aspects, as he thinks we can approach causation in two ways: as a “philosophical” relation and as a “natural” one.” This can be explained by that philosophical relation is typically used to see what is said about causation in term of it being an object while the natural relation aims to use virtue which is involved in reasoning. Philosophical and natural relation help answer the problems and issues that were addressed at the beginning about what in fact is true about causality. With different meanings to causality, this separation by Hume’s helps the reader get a deeper understanding to why the definition he uses helps the reader understand the meaning of causality. The biggest question you see is that does cause really have and relation to effect on the end result. In other terms, can you have an effect without an effect? The separation of philosophical and natural relation help make you understand why it is importance because philosophical helps you understand that causations is part of an object and natural relation also helps with the virtue you use. Without these, it is hard to understand why causality is important and why there is a cause and effect. Hume has two definition for cause and with this you can have an exact definition that can give you the relation of cause and effect. This was the biggest thing that the definition of causality is trying to answer which is why I believe Hume’s definition of causality is correct and is the one that should be used. The first definition that Hume’s use sis that We may define a CAUSE to be ‘An object precedent and contiguous to another, and where all the objects resembling the former are placed in like relations of precedency and contiguity to those objects, that resemble the latter” and the second is : “A CAUSE is an object precedent and contiguous to another, and so united with it, that the idea of the one determines the mind to form the idea of the other, and the impression of the one to form a more lively idea of the other”. If you look at both these, you can see that they are only different because they present different views but they are of the same object. The main thing that both these definitions address is the fact that the object is a predecessor and contiguous to another. This whole argument is based on that definition that Hume’s is making a claim for. For there to be an effect, the cause has to be there first and have an impact on it for it to happen. Hume’s is able to clearly define all this with his examples, different categories and other things he used. An example that I would like to use is that I love to play basketball and it is something I enjoy doing. The main thing in basketball is getting the ball to go into the goal and scoring points. For this to occur you have to shoot the ball for it to go into the basket. If I am shooting the ball and I have form that allows me to shoot the ball the ball will go in. Me using the shooting form causes the ball to go into the direction of the basket which will lead to the effect of the ball going into the basket. Shooting the ball is precedent and contiguous which in term gives you the result or effect of the ball going in. You have to shoot the ball first for you to have the ball to go in and if you don’t shoot, then you can’t get the ball to go in which means you won’t get any points. It’s this relationship between cause and effect that Hume’s clearly defines and wants the learner to understand. This is why I agree with the claim because I feel for there to be an effect, there needs to be a cause that comes before it which acts up on it to make an effect occur.
Other philosophers see causality in a different way in which some “calls causal realism the view that “there is something about the fundamental nature of the world in virtue of which the world is regular in its behavior and some philosophers like Michael Tooley, on the other hand, calls causal realism the anti- reductive view that “the truth-values of causal statements are not, in general, logically determined by non-causal facts”. On both characterizations, RVC would not be a causal realist position”. This claim that comes to refute Hume’s definition can be responded with what Strawson’s claim that RVC could be a causal realist position because RVC is advocated by causal realism and that RVC accepts the regularities of real, objective and mind independent things. This can be concluded that “an advocate of RVC is (or can be) a realist about regularities in so far as causation reduces to regularities, an advocate of RVC can then be a realist about causation RVC can be advocates of causal realism so claims that state that causality is part causal realism and that RVC is an anti-realist can be considered false. A big concern that also comes with Hume’s claim is the Basic Methodological Maxim. This is pretty much is that ideas are like faint images of impressions which are part of thinking and reasoning. The biggest issues with this is people question what the impression of the idea of causation is? If people were to accept the basic Methodological Maxim, then the idea of causation would be meaningless and could not exist and the claims that Hume’s makes about causation would have no meaning or understanding. Hume responds to state that “the idea of causation cannot derive from the impression of a property (quality) of an object and it follows that the idea of causation “must be derived from some relation among objects”. Hume with this states that causation isn’t meant to be an impression and you can’t consider causation to have that impression because causation is derived from the relation of objects not the impressions. From my example of basketball, the basketball and the goal were related to each other. They are related to each other and that you can’t score the points without shooting the ball. For this Hume’s goes into focusing on causation as a natural relation which helps with the question on impression and the necessary connection that is there. The next argument with Hume’s definition on causality is when Mackie argued that “Hume conflated the two distinct kids of necessity which necessity1 whatever is the distinguishing feature of causal as opposed to non-causal sequences” and “necessity2 the supposed warrant for an a priori inference”. Hume responds with this by thinking that he can explain necessity and not have to appeal to powers and like, and even though Hume might not have a full proof argument with Mackie and the claims Hume’s makes could be wrong, it does not mean Mackie is correct to think that Hume does not have a case against necessity.
As you seen throughout the argument, I still stand with my stance that I agree with the claim made by Hume and I agree with his definition of causality. Something is only called an effect because it observed to be constantly conjoined with something that proceeds it. For there to be an effect, there is a cause that precedes it, and this is what Hume’s is claiming with his definition from the evidences that he has presented us. Even though Hume’s has made a strong point for his claim, the idea of Causal reductionism, Causal Skepticism, and Causal Realism can come back and refute claims made by Hume. Even though Hume has addressed each one of these three claims and has stated that his definition could correlate with these other philosophers can come back and refute the claims by addressing causality in a different way. There can also be arguments towards Hume addressing RVC and how Hume address it can be considered wrong. However, I am convinced with the claims that are brought by Hume and that his definition is accurate because for there to be an effect, there needs to be cause that happens before it. You can see this with the two definitions that Hume’s presents us which help us see it.