bump

What are the major philosophical things on causality?

Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

>>7858632
Causality is addressed by just about every philosopher ever.

It goes back to the Unmoved Mover, Inherent causes, Aim Towards the Good, etc. Aristotle

Then you've got the Medievalists trying to prove God via causal chains and necessary causes. This is Augustine, Avicenna, Anselm, Aquinas, etc.

Then you've got your standard modern guys with Descartes, Hume, Spinoza, and Leibnitz and the whole issue with determination vs free will.


THEN you've got German idealists fucking everything up with notions of causation being an a priori, human representation (Schopenhauer), or causality being denied as in the traditional sense of change over time, for time is merely a way in which humans perceive things (Kant). Then you've got Fichte, Hegel, and Neitzche saying some shit about it too.

I mean, causality is pretty broad.

all i no is -

when your mom succ it - my willy extrapolate yogurt

>>7858435
You buy milk because there's an absence of milk.

>>7861655
Has anyone talked about the minute metaphysics of causality?

Like, what does it mean to say "the box fell because the crane dropped it, but I also acknowledge that the box fell because one atom impelled another atom, and because gravity was doing its thing, and because someone pulled the lever that made the box fall, and because there was a chain of discrete mechanical actions in the crane between the lever-pulling and box-falling, and that even the person who dropped the box might be determined" etc etc etc. And on top of that, dealing with the fact that the box isn't even a box, but a collection of discrete particles, or can we even speak of discreteness at all, etc.

I know the prime mover stuff and the implications of radical mechanistic determinism, but I'm wondering what philosophers get into the nitty gritty of shit like this - ESPECIALLY modern ones who tend to take compatibilist+materialist stances. How does a modern scientifically minded guy make sense of this shit?

I know this is confusnig and badly worded, sorry

>>7861926
>Has anyone talked about the minute metaphysics of causality?
Absolutely. But these minute metaphysics of causality are, ultimately, just that: metaphysics. And metaphysics has always been difficult to empirically ascertain. The german idealists were all about the metaphysics of causality, but it's difficult to say who is right and who is wrong. However, if you're merely interested in possible metaphysics of causality, the german idealists would be a lot of fun. Schopenhauer, for instance, argues that the underlying thing-in-itself is will, and will is what propels forth all causality. It's a bizarre monist interpretation of the world. Kant, on the other hand, would argue that nothing about the minute metaphysics of causality can be ascertained, and he gives some very compelling and intriguing counter arguments to traditional concepts of metaphysical causality.

>And on top of that, dealing with the fact that the box isn't even a box, but a collection of discrete particles, or can we even speak of discreteness at all, etc.
This, it seems to me, is a question of what defines a substance. Is it a collection of properties? Is it independent of properties? This question is talked about a lot by Aristotle and totally destroyed by Hegel, who asserts that we cannot know anything about what defines a substance by analyzing its properties or lack thereof. He asserts that both bundle theory and substance/attribute theory are insufficient. He could be fun to read if you're curious about this question, although I may be misinterpreting what you're asking. This particular section of Hegel is Perception in his Phenomenology of Spirit.

I really can't be of much help in terms of contemporary metaphysicians; I haven't quite moved that far down the philosophical tree yet.

>>7861665
why would you want milk

you buy milk because you're sick

>>7861926
Can't help you with your questions, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate your line of thought and you have good questions worth exploring. Hopefully someone else can point you on a good path to check out.

>>7861926
Leibniz talks a lot about discrete particles, calling them 'corpuscles.' You could check that out.