A Comparative Study on Hume, Lewis and J. L. Mackie`s Views on Causation

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. student of comparative philosophy, Faculty of Persian Literature & Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba'I University, Department of Philosophy

2 Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Allameh Tabataba'I University

Abstract

Causation is one of the most important philosophical issues criticized by Hume's analysis and caused many philosophers to find solution and explanation. Lewis and J. L. Mackie, as analytic philosopher built the foundation of their theory upon the critique and modification of Hume's theory. The aim in this paper is to deal with, the issue and the authors attempt to present a comparative study by logical explanation on these approaches and introduce the "ambiguity in causation" as one of the most important factors of failure in these approaches. Although, according to Louis, as the authors hold, Hume's approach only implies sufficient causes and so is not comprehensive, Lewis's own approach only involves the necessary reasons, and therefore it envisages a charge of the same challenge. Finally, the authors explained the complex view of J. L. Mackie and accepts it as a more favorable view and also emphasizes that It is inevitable for scholars used of counterfactual conditions to obtain the necessary conditions., But in such cases it is necessary to define the type of causes.

Keywords

References

Biabanaki, Seyyed Mahdi, (2012), “Hume's naturalistic and epistemological approach on causality”, Philosophy of Science, No1, pp 23-45. [In Persian]
Crane Tim, (2006), ''Causation'' , Trans.by Amir Maziar, Nameh hikmat Journal, No.7. [In Persian]
Ghasemi, Azam, (2016), "Comparing David Hume and Morteza Motahari on the Causality", Hekmat Sadraei, No.1,pp 87-98. [In Persian]
Goodman, Nelson, (1955), “The Problem of Counterfactual Conditional”,In Fact.Fiction and Forcast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [In English]
Hume, D, (1999), An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [In English]
Khademi , Einullah, (2001) Causality in viw Point of the muslim Philosophersand empiricist philosophers, Qom: Boostaneketab. [In Persian]
Lewis, D, (1973), Counterfactuals, Oxford: Blackwell. [In English]
-----------, (1986a), Causal Explanation, in Philosophical Papers 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.214-240. [In English]
-----------, (1986b), On the Plurality of Worlds, Oxford: Blackwell. [In English]
Mackie, J.L, (1980), The Cement of the Universe, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [In English]
--------------, (1965), “Causes and Conditions”, Edited by Ernest Sosa and Michael Tooley (1993), Oxford: Oxford University Press. [In English]
Menzies, P, (2001), Counterfactual Theories of Causation, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =  https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/causation-counterfactual. [In English]
Motaghifar, Saeed, (2015) "causality; objectivity or subjectivity, Comparing Mulla Sadra and Hume", mind, p. 61, pp. 27-58. [In Persian]
Mojtabavi, Jalaluddin, (1976), "causlity", Appendix to the Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities of the Tehran University, No.1, pp. 113-120. [In Persian]
Movahed, Zia,   (2004), An Introduction to New Logic, Tehran: Scientific and cultural publications. [In Persian]
Movahed, Zia, (1995), A counterfactual conditional & Science laws, Faith and Community (Imam Sadeq University Research Journal), No. 2, p 21-30. [In Persian]
Taheri, Sadr al-Din, (1997), Causality in view Point of theAsh'arite and Hume,Tehran: Islamic Culture and Thought Research Institute. [In Persian]
Zakiani, Gholamreza, (2007), The Art of Argument; A New Method in the Education of Logic, Tehran:Rooyesheno. [In Persian]
Journal of Ontological Researches
Volume 8, Issue 16
March 2020
Pages 1-16

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics