Argument, type of cause
- Mattfara
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:37 am
Argument, type of cause
E.T. is a person because he can communicate.
Conclusion: E.T. is a person. This is controversial, so this is an argument (not an explanation).
It is not clear to me which proposition is the cause and which is the effect.
If we assume that "E.T. is a person" is the cause, it seems like it would be the efficient cause. If "he can communicate" is the cause, then this would seem to be a formal cause. On the whole, the argument seems bad since being a person is not necessary for communicating. Dogs do it too.
For simple arguments like this, is there a rule of thumb for deciding which proposition is the cause?
Thanks again
Matt
- Mosesquine
- Posts: 189
- Joined: September 3rd, 2016, 4:17 am
Re: Argument, type of cause
Mattfara wrote:Hi again. This is another question from Kreeft's Socratic Logic (p 205)
E.T. is a person because he can communicate.
Conclusion: E.T. is a person. This is controversial, so this is an argument (not an explanation).
It is not clear to me which proposition is the cause and which is the effect.
If we assume that "E.T. is a person" is the cause, it seems like it would be the efficient cause. If "he can communicate" is the cause, then this would seem to be a formal cause. On the whole, the argument seems bad since being a person is not necessary for communicating. Dogs do it too.
For simple arguments like this, is there a rule of thumb for deciding which proposition is the cause?
Thanks again
Matt
Causes and effects are regarded in general as events. In 'c causes e', c and e are events. There is another approach that is called 'fact causation'. The formulation is roughly as follows: c caused e if and only if e occurred because c occurred.
However, in the argument you offered above, 'because' does not play the role of 'fact causation' but of 'reasons'. In 'a because b', b plays the role of reasons why a is the case.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Argument, type of cause
Of course not.Mattfara wrote:
E.T. is a person because he can communicate.
It is not clear to me which proposition is the cause and which is the effect.
Matt
ET is a person because (he?) can communicate is almost, and to our purpose sufficiently, equivalent to ET can communicate because he is a person.
The two occur simultaneously.
In causation, cause occurs first, and effect occurs after that. You kick the ball; the ball flies off. You are hungry, you eat, your hunger goes away (ergo eating is a good way to stave hunger.)
There is no such progression in "ET is a person because he can communicate". He could communicate because first he was a person then he communicated; or else he can be a person because first he communicated, which elevated him to personhood.
The situation itself does not lend itself to causation in the temporally progressive way.
Therefore your question is wrong; you should not seek a cause and or an effect in the above statement. Your confusion is valid. You are seeking a needle in a haystack which contains none.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023