Hume Versus Aristotle, Locke and Leibniz on Causality
Silvio Mota Pinto
Published 2020-06-27
How to Cite
Downloads
Altmetrics
Citas
Abstract
Aristotle’s conception of causality and the ones Modern philosophers have bequeathed us (Locke, Leibniz and Hume in particular) have been exhaustively discussed, although the contrast between them has not, in my opinion, been sufficiently highlighted. This paper proposes to fill this gap. I start with Aristotelian causality and his theses that causal explanation requires knowledge of causal laws and that the necessity associated with these laws presupposes the existence of causal powers. I discuss next Locke’s and Leibniz’s attempts to modernize Aristotle’s theses on causality. The third part of the paper presents two paradoxes Hume identified, on the one hand, between Locke’s and Leibniz’s theses about our knowledge of causal laws and, on the other hand, between the Aristotelian thesis that there must be causal powers and the scientific practice of Modernity. Hume’s proposal to eliminate these paradoxes is also discussed. I finish with some critical remarks on the humean model about our knowledge of causal laws as compared with his contribution to the analysis of the concept of causality.
References
- Annas, J. (1982). Aristotle on Efficient Causes. Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 311-326.
- Aristóteles. (1984a). Physics. En The Complete Works of Aristotle. Vol. 1. J. Barnes (ed.), Hardie y Gaye (trads.). Princeton University Press.
- Aristóteles.(1984b). Metaphysics. En The Complete Works of Aristotle. Vol. 2. J. Barnes (ed.). W. D. Ross (trad.). Princeton University Press.
- Aristóteles. (1994). Metafísica. Gredos.
- Aristóteles. (1995). Física. Gredos.
- Collins, J., Hall, N. y Paul, L. A. (2004). Causation and Counterfactuals. The MIT Press.
- Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
- Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Simon & Schuster.
- Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of Scentific Explanation. The Free Press.
- Hocutt, M. (1974). Aristotle’s Four Becauses. Philosophy, 49, 385-399.
- Hume, D. (1888). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press.
- Hume, D. (1975). Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. Oxford University Press.
- Hume, D. (1980). Investigación sobre el conocimiento humano. Alianza Editorial.
- Hume, D. (1988). Tratado de la naturaleza humana. Tecnos.
- Kail, P. (2007). Projection and Realism in Hume’s Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
- Leibniz, G. (1686). Discours de Métaphysique. Lestienne.
- Leibniz, G. (1720). Die Monadologie. Jena.
- Leibniz, G. (1981a). Discurso de Metafísica. Alianza Editorial.
- Leibniz, G. (1981b). Monadología. Pentalfa ediciones.
- Leibniz, G. (1983). Nuevos ensayos sobre el entendimiento humano. Editora nacional.
- Leibniz, G. (1989). Philosophical Essays. Hackett Publishing Company.
- Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556-567.
- Locke, J. (1690). An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding. Thomas Bassett.
- Locke, J. (1999). Ensayo sobre el entendimiento humano. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
- Millican, P. (2009). Hume, Causal Realism, and Causal Science. Mind, 118(471), 647-712.
- Moravcsik, J. (1974). Aristotle on Adequate Explanation. Synthese, 28, 3-17.
- Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge & Keagan Paul.
- Quine, W. v. (1951). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20-43.
- Ruben, D. (1990). Explaining Explanation. Routledge.
- Russell, B. (1900). A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. Cambridge University Press.
- Strawson, G. (1989). The Secret Connexion: Causation, Realism, and David Hume. Oxford University Press.
- Stroud, B. (1977). Hume. Routledge & Keagan Paul.
- Winkler, K. (1991). The New Hume. Philosophical Review, 100(4), 541-579.
- Wright, J. (1983). The Sceptical Realism of David Hume. University of Minnesota Press.