THREE TIMES
11. THREE TIMES (traikalya-pariksa)
Again, all things are empty. Why? The cause does not exist either earlier, or later, or at the same time as the effect. As it is said, “Sooner than”, “later than” and “simultaneously with” - Such events are impossible. How can events be produced by causes?
It cannot be true that cause precedes effect. Why? If the cause exists first, and the effect comes from it later, there would initially be no effect, and what would be its cause? If the effect precedes the cause, then the effect is already established when there is no cause, and why does it need a cause? If cause and effect exist at the same time, then there would be no causal origin. For example, a cow's horns are produced simultaneously; right and left do not condition each other. Then the so-called cause cannot cause the effect, and the so-called effect does not follow from the cause, since they are produced at the same time. Therefore, three temporal relationships between cause and effect are unattainable.
Question: Your refutation of causation also cannot be established in three temporal relations. If the refutation precedes the refutable, then there will be no refutable and what can refute the refutation? If the refuted precedes the refutation, then the refuted is established and why does it need to be refuted? If the refutation and the refuted exist at the same time, there will be no causality [between them]. For example, a cow's horns are produced simultaneously; right and left do not condition each other. So, refutation does not condition what is being refuted, and vice versa.
Answer: Your refutation and the refutation contain the same error.
If all things are empty, there can be neither refutation nor anything to be refuted. Now you say that my refutation is empty, this establishes what I am saying.
If I say that there must be a refutation and a refutable, I am, as you say, in error; but I’m not saying that there should be a refutation and a refutable, so your argumentation does not offend me.
Question: What we actually observe is that cause precedes effect; for example, a master makes a jug. The cause may also come before the effect; for example, through students there is a teacher, and they are known as students after learning has taken place. Cause and effect can also exist at the same time; for example, light and its brightness exist at the same time. So, it is wrong to say that the cause exists not earlier, not later, and not simultaneously with the effect.
Answer: Your example of a craftsman making a jug is incorrect. Why? If there is no jug, what will be the cause of the master? As in the case of the master, nothing can be a cause before an effect.
It is also not justified that there is a cause that is later than the effect. If there is no student, who can be the teacher? Therefore, a cause that is later than an effect is illogical.
If you say that, like light and brightness, cause and effect exist at the same time, you are still asserting a dubious cause. Suppose light and brightness exist at the same time, how can they condition each other?
So causes and conditions are empty. Therefore you must admit that all created things, uncreated things and all sentient beings are empty.
Any event in our world does not occur by chance. It is preceded by a reason, the so-called trigger, which provoked this event. This is always clear, especially if you are used to analyzing everything, from world news to your friend’s mood swings. Many people think that they appear by themselves, but this is not true. They don’t arise out of nowhere, but finding the cause of a particular habit can be very difficult. It’s even more difficult to use triggers to your advantage, for example, to replace a bad habit (smoking) with a good one (20 push-ups a day). Why is it worth paying close attention to habits? Because they are, in their essence, an active action that does not cause us inconvenience.
But how can you use triggers to your advantage? We'll tell you about this.
1. Time
Time is perhaps the most powerful way to trigger a new habit. Just remember the morning. When you wake up, you start a whole sequence of habits: showering, brushing your teeth, drinking coffee, reading the news. Please note that you repeat many tasks day after day completely thoughtlessly, not only at the very early hours, but also throughout the day: you have a snack at the same time or, for example, light a cigarette at the same hour. Try to analyze your routine, your feelings during the day, evening and morning. Perhaps your habit is just a reaction to what you feel at a particular moment: for example, you devour buns at 14.30 not because you are hungry, but because you are bored - this is how you dilute the monotony of the day.
The point is that if you understand the reason for activating a habit at a certain time of the day, you can easily find the best time for a new, already useful action, that is, you don’t just give up bad habits (that’s much more difficult), but replace them with something... something else. For example, every weekday I write one article before 13.00. It doesn't matter how good or bad I feel about the topic, it doesn't matter how many letters there are in the text. The main thing is that I stick to this schedule all the time, and now it’s easy for me.
2nd place
Dislocation affects your habits, you can’t even argue with that. You only need to walk into the kitchen and see a plate of cookies to understand this. You didn’t feel like eating, you don’t even like cookies, but for some reason you actively chew them. I think location is a powerful habit trigger. Our behavior is in many ways just a reaction to the external environment. At Duke University (Tim Cook is one of the graduates) they came to the conclusion that repeated unconscious actions are reinforced in certain places (office, smoking room, cafe, home), and that for a new habit it is easier to find a new place than to try to consolidate it in the old one, simply put, the current positions are already taken.
If you still want to occupy the “old domains,” then you will have to fight the signals that you have already assigned to the spaces that are familiar to you. Partly for this reason, people who start a “new life” in a new home actually change their habits and live differently. It is easier for the brain to accept all these changes. And if it’s easier for the brain, it’s easier for you too.
3. Events
We said at the beginning that many habits are just a response to what is happening in your life. For example, your phone vibrates and you pick it up to read the text of the message. A notification lights up on your tablet, and you instantly check your account so you don’t miss anything important. These are examples of habits that are triggered by a previous event.
Something like this can be used. It is enough to be able to find the “correct” antecedent events that lead to positive actions. Essentially, you yourself create the connection between the event and the habit. And it doesn’t have to be logically justified. For example, you think that if you drink a cup of coffee, your performance will increase, which means you can do all the important work tasks in the first third of the working day, and devote the rest of the time to details. We all know that coffee is not a magical substance that makes us superheroes. However, if you convince yourself of this, your performance can really increase significantly, and you will develop a definitely useful habit.
4. Emotional state
In my experience, the emotional state is the very trigger that gives rise to bad habits. You feel depressed, terrible, and subsequently smoke a pack of cigarettes or drink beer all day. There is no joy from this, but there is a lot of negativity. But nothing can be done. We are all subject to emotions, and not everyone can control them, let alone use them to create something constructive. I think the point is that if you want to create a positive habit, then you have to become aware of your emotions, explain them.
Negative energy is actually a very powerful thing - ask any abstractionist. Some people, when they are stressed, simply stop living: they lie on the couch for days, do nothing, eat ice cream, and simply exist. The other part, on the contrary, shows vigorous activity. Anger, for example, is an excellent reason to engage in physical labor. Agree, when you're angry, it's better to destroy your apartment.
5. Environment
But don't forget about the people. It is foolish to deny their influence. Your friends, relatives, colleagues actively participate, without even realizing it, in shaping your behavior and your habits. I once read an absurd study in a medical journal (unfortunately, I don’t remember the name). So, doctors came to the conclusion (this happened in the States) that if your friend is a famous fatty and is obese, then your risk of developing obesity increases by 57 percent, even if your friend lives hundreds of kilometers away and you communicate online .
It is logical to assume that the same is true with alcoholics, drug addicts and those who like to post photos of their feet on Instagram. In this regard, it is wise to surround yourself with people who will serve as an example for you.
Phenomena differ not only in degree of occurrence (frequency), but also in dependencies from each other. Some phenomena cause and give rise to others. The first ones act as causes, the second - how consequences. This difference between phenomena, however, is not absolute. Any phenomenon is both cause and effect. It is a consequence in relation to the phenomenon that causes and generates it (for example, hitting a billiard ball with a cue is a consequence of pushing the cue with the player’s hand towards the ball). But this same phenomenon acts as a cause in relation to another phenomenon, which is its consequence (the strike of the cue on the ball is the cause of the movement of the ball that has begun). Causality means the transition of one phenomenon to another and nothing more. The chain of causes and effects is a chain of successive transitions from one phenomenon to another, from another to a third, and so on ad infinitum. The world of phenomena is a world of endless cause-and-effect chains. A clear example: if dominoes are placed on an edge in one row close to each other, then when the outermost domino is pushed, all the dominoes will fall sequentially one after another. An external push causes the first domino to fall; this fall causes the second one to fall, and so on. Another example: a chain of causes and consequences that caused the death of a person. The immediate cause of death may be shock. The cause of shock is severe pain. The cause of pain is a burn to an area of the body. A burn is caused by touching a hot or burning object. The reason for touching is a push of this person by another person in the direction of this object. The reason for this action of another person may be revenge, anger, hatred, etc.
A striking example of a cause-and-effect chain is a chain (chemical or nuclear) reaction.
So, any phenomenon is cause and effect, but in different relations in relation to various others phenomena. In other words, any phenomenon has a cause-and-effect nature. This means that there are no causeless phenomena, just as there are no phenomena that disappear without a trace, into oblivion. Whatever phenomenon we take, it necessarily stands in a series of phenomena, some of which give rise to it, and others are its consequences.
The question of causality is one of the most difficult philosophical questions. The swords of many philosophical teachings and trends crossed around him. And this is no coincidence. In the world of phenomena, that is, in a world relatively independent of law-governed reality, causality is the only ordering factor. If there is no causality, then anything is possible. And from recognizing the causelessness to recognizing the miraculousness of what is happening is one step. This is no longer science or philosophy, but religion and mysticism. If there is a connection or dependence between phenomena, then this is causation. Sometimes they say this: causality is a form of connection between phenomena. One can agree with this understanding of causality if by causality communication mean exactly addiction phenomena, but not the connection that forms integrity. (An example of the latter is a chemical bond that forms a particular chemical substance.) Causality is simply the dependence of one phenomenon on another, and this other on a third, and so on ad infinitum. In the case of a connection that forms integrity, there is mutual dependence of the sides of the whole. And in the case of a causal connection there is one-sided dependence of one phenomenon on another.
Thus, the essence of causality is that it indicates the dependence of one phenomenon on another, that this or that phenomenon did not arise out of nothing, was not generated by some miraculous, supernatural force, but by another phenomenon. An earthquake is a phenomenon, but as a cause it gives rise to a number of other phenomena - the destruction of buildings, the death of people and animals. In turn, an earthquake is not God’s punishment, but a consequence of critical stresses in the earth’s crust that arise at the junction of geological platforms and at fault points.
From the principle of causality, i.e. from the recognition of the universality of the cause-and-effect relationship of phenomena, two important conclusions follow:
A) nothing arises from nothing and does not disappear without a trace, that is, it does not turn into nothing. This is a negative expression of the principle of causality;
b) every phenomenon is generated by another phenomenon and, in turn, generates a third phenomenon and so on ad infinitum. This conclusion is a positive expression of the principle of causality.
From here it becomes clear why causality belongs to the structure of the category of phenomenon. After all, phenomena, the world of phenomena, are in the true sense the alpha and omega of the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship. You can look for the cause of phenomena only in other phenomena, and not in anything else. Outside the world of phenomena it does not and cannot exist. Any cause-and-effect relationship is only a link in an endless chain of causes and effects. Since it consists of causes-phenomena and consequences-phenomena, no matter how far we look through this chain in the causal or effectual direction, we will see only phenomena everywhere. V.Ya. Perminov, commenting on Descartes, notes that such an understanding of causality is positive science slogan.
The principle “all phenomena have a cause in other phenomena” clearly shows that causation entirely belongs to the world of phenomena.
It should be especially noted that the causal relationship has the “property” of irreversibility, unidirectionality - from cause to effect. In this way it differs, as we have already said, from the connection that forms integrity. This “property” of a causal connection serves as another “argument” in favor of the fact that causality relates or belongs to the structure of the category of a phenomenon. As we established earlier, the phenomenon and irreversibility - relevant categories. Irreversibility in phenomena is realized in the form unidirectionality cause-and-effect relationship. The cause-and-effect relationship directly, directly expresses the irreversible nature of the transition from one phenomenon to another. (A simple example: a cup broke on the floor; the collision of the cup with the floor is the cause; the breaking of the cup is the effect. This relationship of cause and effect cannot be reversed, i.e., the breaking of the cup cannot be the cause of its collision with the floor).
The idea of the unidirectional nature of cause-and-effect relationships is firmly entrenched in philosophy and science. Moreover, this idea is used as an indisputable argument to substantiate the thesis about the irreversibility of the temporal order.
Let us now show that the cause-and-effect relationship relates exclusively to the sphere being reality that only phenomena can have the quality of cause (effect), but not things, bodies, objects, etc.
In fact, if we use the concept of cause in a precise categorical sense, then it is applicable not to things, bodies, objects, but specifically to phenomena. For example, one cannot say: the cause of an atom, paper, car, stone, spoon, electron, etc. On the contrary, one can and should talk about the cause of the decay of the atomic nucleus, the burning of paper, the movement of a car, the contamination of a spoon, the annihilation of an electron. Causes and their actions and consequences can only be phenomena, i.e. relationships between things through their properties, and not the things themselves. It is the influence of one on the other that causes the third. If there is no impact, then there is no cause.
The phenomenon was described above as different and opposite in fact. And in this case, causality is the best suited to characterize the reality that appears. A cause-and-effect relationship occurs where something has a cause not in itself, but in friend. The idea of causality is the idea that one there is a reason another. One phenomenon is generated by another, this other by a third, and so on ad infinitum. The relation of the generation of one phenomenon by another is, in other words, the generation differences And opposites in fact. And the less the effect resembles the cause, the more it phenomenon. They speak, for example, about the Phenomena of Nature, the Phenomena of the Spirit. These expressions emphasize precisely the moment of difference between phenomena and what preceded them, from which they arose. Phenomenon with a Capital P brings reality opposition, contrast.(This phenomenon is usually called event, phenomenon).
Unlike reality internal reality ( law) has a cause, or rather, a basis not in another reality, but in itself, i.e. it is the cause of myself, causa sui, as Spinoza would say. Causa sui is identity with oneself, but not causation in the true sense.
Hegel in his time distinguished between cause-and-effect relation and interaction. He noted that interaction, in contrast to the cause-and-effect relationship, is well expressed by Spinoza's causa sui (“the cause of oneself”). Currently, scientists use the term “interaction” in the broadest sense, as any real relationship of things. On the other hand, they began to divide interactions into internal and external, meaning by the former cyclic interactions that are closed in nature, and by the latter various open processes, collisions, impacts, etc., i.e., what we call phenomena. Scientists call external interactions interactions because they involve at least two parties acting on each other. In fact, external interaction is not interaction, but the influence of one on another, which is why it is called external. When we hit a billiard ball with a cue, we transfer part of the energy of the cue to it and it does not return to the cue. In external interaction, an irreversible transfer of energy, momentum and even mass from one to another occurs. This serves as the basis for distinguishing cause and effect. In internal interaction (for example, in the interaction of the atomic nucleus and the electron shell) occurs exchange energy, momentum, mass between the transition sides of interaction. There is no distinct transition from one to another, so there is no cause-and-effect relationship. Internal interaction, which determines the existence of integral objects, does not highlight any one direction of action of the parties and therefore, in the true sense, is interaction.
Some philosophers are trying to universalize the cause-and-effect relationship and extend it to the area of internal interactions. In fact, causality is only a part of the universal connection.
Scientists and philosophers often talk about causal laws. How justified is this expression from the point of view of categorical logic? After all, causality refers to the world of phenomena, and law characterizes the internal side of reality. It's like there's a contradiction here. It must, however, be borne in mind that causal laws are not exactly laws, that they gravitate toward the world of phenomena, and that the true sphere of causal statements is the level of reasoning about phenomena, about the connection of phenomena. Causal laws can only be spoken of as private, i.e. those that imperceptibly and smoothly transform into the phenomena themselves. The more general the law, the further away it is from phenomena and the less it can be interpreted as a causal law.
The idea of a cause-and-effect relationship will be incomplete if we do not mention the intermediate link of the relationship - action, connecting cause and effect. Action and consequence are sometimes identified, but no distinction is made between them. Hence the confusion of concepts and empty disputes about the simultaneity or non-simultaneity of cause and action (effect). Authors who focus on the cause-effect relationship tend to defend the thesis of the simultaneity of cause and action. And those authors who pay more attention to the “cause-effect” relationship, as a rule, defend the thesis that cause precedes effect. In the end, both are right. We are talking about different concepts: action And consequence. If the action of a cause is the process of creating an effect, then the effect is the result of the action of a cause. Let's explain this with an example. If you push the ball along a smooth surface, it will begin to move. A push is the cause of movement. The latter is the effect of the cause. The ball will continue to move after the push stops. This movement of it by inertia is no longer an action, but a consequence of a push.
Cause and effect always coincide in time, that is, there is no “earlier-later” temporal relationship between them. There cannot be a situation where there is a cause, but the action is absent, or, conversely, there is an action, but the reason has already disappeared. A cause does not exist before its effect. Likewise, the effect does not exist after the cause. Cessante causa cessat effectus- when the cause ceases, the effect also ceases. For example, if accelerating the movement of a body has as its cause a certain force applied to the body, then with the elimination of this cause, the accelerated movement also stops. According to Newton's second law F = ma the acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the force applied to it, and if the force becomes zero, then the acceleration stops). Assume the existence of an action after reasons - this means presupposing the existence of an action without cause, causeless action. The reason works- this expression emphasizes live the connection between cause and action, the fact of their simultaneous existence.
The meaning of the concept of consequence is that it expresses residual the effect of a cause. The effect persists after the action of the cause has ceased, or, in any case, it, as a cause, passes the “baton” to another effect. The principle “cause precedes effect” is just an expanded (and, one might add, simplified, coarsened) interpretation of the word “effect”, the root of which is “trace”, meaning what remains, is preserved after some impact, change. The effect is not as closely related to the cause as the action, but it is also necessarily “joined” with it in time and space. Continuity of transition cause ® effect ® effect- this, one might say, is the law of causality. There is no time interval or interval between cause and effect. The cause lasts in time (for some time) and its duration continuously turns into the duration of the effect. On the other hand, the effect necessarily goes beyond the temporal boundaries of the cause. This is also the law of causation, usually expressed in the form of the principle “cause precedes effect.” The essence of causality is not only that it generates a difference between phenomena (the effect must be different from the cause, otherwise it merges with it), but also that it creates a difference in time, a difference in moments of time, namely, the distinction between past, present and future.
The relationship of cause and effect implies limb the existence of a cause in time, the temporary nature of its action, since the effect somehow goes beyond the temporal O the existence of a cause. In other words, the consequence ends reason. And this is quite understandable from the point of view of the logic of correspondences. Cause-and-effect relation as relation phenomena respectively final.
Undoubtedly, the most universal and most reliable among all scientific laws is the law of cause and effect, or, as it is also called, the law of causality. In science, laws are viewed as “reflecting actual systems in nature” (Hull, 1974, p. 3). As far as historical experience shows, laws know no exceptions. And this is undoubtedly true of the law of causality. This law has been formulated in various ways, each of which adequately expresses its basic meaning. Kant, in the first edition of the book Critique of Pure Reason, argued that “everything that happens (begins to be) presupposes something that it follows, in accordance with a rule.” In the second edition he strengthened this statement, noting that “all changes take place according to the law of attribution of cause and effect” (see Michaeljohn, 1878, p. 141). Schopenhauer expressed this point as follows: “Nothing happens without a reason why it should happen instead of not happening” (see von Mises, 1968, p. 159). The number of different formulations can be increased almost indefinitely. But, in simple terms, the law of causation states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause.
The philosophical and theological implications of this concept—the pros and cons—have been debated for many years. But when the dust of battle settles, the law of causality always remains intact and unharmed. In the world of experimental science or in the ordinary world of personal experience there is no question as to its acceptance. Many years ago, Professor W.T. Stace commented on this in his classic work, A Critical History of Greek Philosophy:
Richard Taylor, addressing the importance of this fundamental law of science in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, wrote:
However, it can hardly be disputed that the idea of causality is not only an integral part of everyday affairs, but also of all applied science. Jurisprudence and law would be meaningless if people were not empowered to look for the causes of various undesirable events such as violent deaths, fires and accidents. The same is true in such fields as public health, medicine, military planning, and, of course, every aspect of life (1967, p. 57).
Science and law, cause and effect
While the law of cause and effect transcends strictly scientific boundaries and affects all other disciplines as well, and while the principle of causality has serious theological and/or metaphysical significance, the scientific significance it represents ranks among the most important ever. or open principles. It is obvious that if every material effect has an adequate antecedent cause, and if the Universe is a material effect, then the Universe had a cause. Scientists do not lose sight of this. For example, Robert Jastrow wrote:
The universe and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time is a grand effect without a known cause. Effect without cause? This is not from the world of science; this is a world of witchcraft, uncontrollable events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to consign to oblivion. How should we perceive this picture as scientists? I don't know. I would only like to present evidence in favor of the fact that the Universe and man himself appeared at the moment when time began" (1977, p. 21).
Effects without adequate causes are unknown. However, the Universe, says Dr. Jastrow, is a stunning effect - without any known cause. However, centuries of research have taught us a lot about the causes. For example, we know that causes never follow effects. As Taylor noted:
Modern philosophers... have, however, largely agreed that causes cannot occur after their effects. ... it is generally accepted that part of the ordinary meaning of the word "cause" is that a cause is something that precedes, or at least does not follow, its effect" (1967, p. 59).
It makes no sense to talk about a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause.
We also know, as mentioned above, that the effect never surpasses the cause qualitatively or quantitatively. It is this knowledge that allows us to formulate the law of causality in the following words: “Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause.” The river was not muddied because a frog jumped into it; the book fell from the table not because a fly landed on it; These are not adequate reasons. For any effects we observe, we must postulate adequate causes.
Thus, the Law of Causality has serious significance in every field in which man makes efforts - be it science, metaphysics or theology. The universe is before us. Some cause prior to the Universe is responsible for its existence. This reason must be greater than the Universe itself and surpass it. But, as Jastrow noted: "...the most recent astronomical data indicate that at some point in the past the chain of cause and effect suddenly broke. An important event occurred - the beginning of the world - for which there is no known cause or explanation" (1977 , p. 27). Of course, when Dr. Jastrow says there is "no known cause or explanation," what he means is that there is no known natural cause or explanation. Scientists as well as philosophers understand that the universe must have had a cause. They understand that this cause must have preceded and transcended the Universe. It is generally accepted that there is no natural cause sufficient to explain the origin of matter, that is, the Universe, as Jastrow freely admits. However, this poses a really serious problem regarding which R.L. Wysong wrote:
Everyone comes to the natural and convenient conclusion that objects that have a design and a high level of order (cars, houses, etc.) owe their existence to the designer. To come to a different conclusion would be unnatural. But evolution asks us to forget what is natural to believe and then to believe what is unnatural, unreasonable and... incredible. Some tell us that everything that really exists - the Universe, life, etc. - has no original cause. But, since the Universe functions on the basis of the correlation of cause and effect, how can one, from the point of view of science - which studies that very Universe - prove that the Universe does not have an original cause? Or, if the evolutionist gives a reason, he refers to either eternal matter or energy. He then puts forward a cause much smaller than the effect. The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience, but rather unreasonable inferences from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy (1976, p. 412, ellipse in original).
Dr. Wysong presented an interesting historical fact to support his point. Several years ago, scientists gathered in the UK, in the Salisbury Valley in Wiltshire, to study the orderly concentric circles of stones and pits at Stonehenge. As research progressed, it became apparent that these circles were created specifically to make certain astronomical predictions. Questions about how the stones were brought to this place, how these ancient people were able to build an astronomical observatory, how the data obtained from research were used, and many others remain unanswered. But one thing is certain: reason Stonehenge was an intelligent design.
Now, as Dr. Wysong suggested, contrast Stonehenge (as one television commentator did) with a situation corresponding to the origin of life. We study life, observe its functions, reflect on its complexity (which, admittedly, cannot be reproduced even by people armed with intelligence and the most modern methodology and technology) - and what is our conclusion? Theoretically, Stonehenge could have been the result of mountain erosion or catastrophic natural forces (like tornadoes or hurricanes) acting together with meteorites to form stones and concentric pits. But what academic scientist (or television commentator, for that matter) would seriously consider such a ridiculous idea? And what person with common sense would believe such an assumption? However, in the matter of the creation of life - the complex design of which turns Stonehenge into something built by a three-year-old child from building blocks on a Saturday evening in the middle of a continuous downpour - we are asked to believe that it can be explained by blind, mindless, random, physical processes without any or reasonable management. It is not surprising that Dr. Wysong notes with obvious displeasure that evolutionists ask us to “forget what we naturally believe.” No one can be convinced that Stonehenge “just happened.” This is not an adequate reason. However, we are expected to accept the idea that life “just happened.” Such a conclusion is both unfounded and unreasonable. The cause is inadequate to produce such an effect.
It is the understanding of the implications of the law of causation that has led some to attempt to debunk or refuse to accept the universal principle of cause and effect. Perhaps the most famous skeptic in this regard was the British empiricist David Hume, who was famous for his antagonism to the principle of cause and effect. However, no matter how persistent Hume was in his criticism, he did not go so far as to claim that cause and effect do not exist. He simply felt that it was not empirically valid, and instead relied on a priori reasoning. Hume noted in a letter to John Stewart: “I never asserted such absurd Propositions as that without a Cause anything can come into being: I only stated that our Confidence in the Falsity of this Proposition does not arise from Intuition or Demonstration; but from another Source (see Greig, 1932, p. 187, emphasis and capitalization in the original; Greig, 1984, p. 75) Even an unbeliever of Hume's stature would not deny cause and effect.
No matter how hard they try, skeptics cannot circumvent this basic law of science. Of course, other arguments were put forward against him than those put forward by Hume. For example, one such argument claims that the principle is false because it contradicts itself. It looks something like this. The principle of cause and effect states that everything must have a cause. According to this concept, everything traces back to the First Cause, where suddenly its action ceases. But how does this fit with logic? Why does the principle that everything must have a cause suddenly cease to apply? Why suddenly does this so-called First Cause not similarly require a cause? If everything needs an explanation, or a reason, then why doesn't this First Cause also need an explanation, or a reason? And if this First Cause does not need explanation, then why do other things need it?
One can offer two responses to such dissatisfaction with the law of causation. First, it is logically impossible to defend any concept of "infinite retrogression" that postulates an endless series of effects without a final cause. Philosophers have argued this point correctly for generations (see Greig 1979, pp. 47–51; 1984, pp. 75–81). Everything that comes into existence must have a cause. Nothing happens for no reason.
Secondly, the grievance expressed by skeptics who claim that the law of causation contradicts itself is not a valid objection to the law; rather, it will be an objection to the incorrect formulation of this law. If one were to simply say, “Everything must have a cause,” then the objection would be valid. But that's not what the law says. He argues that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. As John H. Gerstner rightly argued:
Since every effect must have a cause, ultimately there must be one cause which is not an effect but only a cause, or how then can effects be explained? A cause that is itself an effect would not explain anything, but would require other explanations. This, in turn, would require further explanation, and we would have a completely endless backward movement. But this argument showed that the universe as we know it is an effect and cannot explain itself; to explain it, something is necessary which, unlike it, is not a consequence. There must be an eternal reason. This makes sense (1967, p. 53).
It really makes sense. This is dictated by science and common sense. Taylor noted: “However, if anyone asserts that he sees no difference between the relation of cause to effect, on the one hand, and of effect to its cause, on the other, he appears to be contrary to the common sense of mankind, for the difference seems quite obvious to most people..." (1967, p. 66). From time to time we are encouraged that researchers end up calling for "common sense" or what is "quite obvious to most people." In the case of the law of causation, it is “quite obvious” that every material effect must have an adequate cause; common sense requires no more and no less.
Although critics oppose the law of cause and effect and evolutionists ignore it, it remains irrefutable. Its central idea remains intact: every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The Universe is before us. Before us is life in our magnificent Universe. Before us is the mind. Morality is before us. What is their primary cause? Since the effect never exceeds or precedes the cause, it is reasonable to believe that the Cause of life must both precede the Universe and be more powerful than it - the living Mind, which itself has a moral essence. While the evolutionist is forced to admit that the Universe is "an effect without a known cause" (to use Dr. Jastrow's words), the creationist asserts an adequate Cause - a transcendent Creator - that is consistent with known facts and what follows from those facts.
(Additional material within)
When faced with any unfamiliar phenomenon or event, we usually think: why does it exist, why did it arise or happen? By thinking about these questions, we look for the cause of a phenomenon or event. And this is no coincidence. Experience shows that there are no uncaused events, that they are always the consequences of certain causes. Establishing the cause of a phenomenon or event is the most important moment in its knowledge. Science begins where the cause-and-effect relationship is revealed.
What is cause and effect? What is the connection between them?
Causal relationship, or causality, - a form of connection between phenomena or events in which one phenomenon or event determines or causes another. A phenomenon or event that causes some other phenomenon or event is called reason. The cause determines the occurrence of the second phenomenon, a change in its state or its disappearance. The result of the cause (second phenomenon) is called consequence.
The cause-and-effect relationship is characterized by a number of significant features. First of all, the causal dependence of phenomena is universal character. There is not a single phenomenon, not a single event that does not have its natural causes. It can be said that Causality is a universal law of the objective world that knows no exceptions.
However, in addition to causality in the reality around us, there are other forms of connection between phenomena and events. Many of them are closely related to causal dependence, but are not reducible to it. The most important forms of connections are reflected by such correlative categories of dialectics, as individual and general, necessity and chance, form and content, possibility and reality and others, which will be discussed later. Causality is only a link in the endless chain of universal interaction of phenomena.
Causality objective, i.e. it is inherent in the phenomena of the material world and does not depend on the consciousness of people. Thus, environmental changes are the cause of evolutionary changes in organisms, and this connection exists in nature itself and does not depend on any consciousness. Defending the position of dialectical materialism on the issue of causality from the attacks of idealists, V. I. Lenin wrote that causal dependence is contained in the things themselves, and is not introduced into them from the outside.
On the issue of the universality and objectivity of causal connections between the main philosophical trends - materialism and idealism - there has long been a sharp struggle. Materialists stand on the point of view determinism- the doctrine according to which causality is universal and objective.
A doctrine that denies the objective nature of the causal relationship and its universality is called indeterminism, and its supporters are indeterminists. Some of them deny causality altogether, believing that it is just a habitual, repeating sequence of sensations. Others believe that causality is simply present in the human mind, given to him before any experience, that is, a priori, and he, as it were, imposes causality on events, orders them with its help. In other words, in understanding causality, indeterminists take the position subjective idealism.
They claim that the data of modern science indicate the absence of causality in the microcosm, in mental processes, in social life. For example, “physical” idealists try to draw their arguments in favor of denying causality from the field of microworld physics. They proceed from the fact that in the world of macrobodies, where the laws of classical mechanics apply, we can simultaneously and accurately determine the coordinates of a body and its speed. The cause here is understood as a force applied externally to a certain body, and the effect is a change in the position of this body in space or its speed. This form of causality, which consists in the purely external influence of bodies on each other, is mechanical.
In microprocesses, it is impossible to simultaneously and with unlimited accuracy determine the coordinates and momentum of a microparticle. Consequently, indeterminists conclude, not a single microparticle obeys the law of causality. In their opinion, it freely chooses the path of its movement, and this supposedly indicates that there is no causality in the microcosm.
In fact, the conclusion from the fact that in the microcosm it is impossible to simultaneously determine the coordinates and momentum of a particle should be completely different, namely: there is no mechanical form causal connection - there are other types of this connection. Dialectical materialism proceeds precisely from the diversity of types of causal connection. He does not reduce it to any one type, but believes that in different areas of reality it manifests itself in different ways.
Objective idealists, as a rule, are not supporters of indeterminism and “recognize” causality. But for them, the reasons are ideal, supernatural and go back to the absolute idea, spirit, God, etc., which contradicts science and opens the way to priesthood and mysticism. Thus, modern Catholic philosophers - neo-Thomists - directly assert that the final cause of all things is God.
The most important feature of a causal relationship is its necessary character. It means that certain cause in the presence of appropriate conditions necessarily, inevitably causes a certain consequence. Thus, heating a metal necessarily causes it to expand, but it cannot transform it, say, into chlorine. A grain of wheat thrown into the soil, given the right conditions, will produce an ear of wheat, but it would be in vain to expect that a date palm will grow from it.
It does not follow from what has been said, however, that all phenomena, having their own causes, are necessary. The connection between cause and effect is necessary, but the cause itself in relation to any process can be random, and then the effect of this cause will also be random. If, for example, pathogenic bacteria enter the human body, then in the presence of certain conditions (weakened state of the body, etc.) he will definitely fall ill. But bacteria enter the body not necessarily, but accidentally. This means that the disease is random.
The above examples show that a certain cause causes a certain effect only if the appropriate conditions are present. The cause is what causes the event conditions- these are phenomena that are necessary for the onset of an investigation, contribute to its onset, but cannot themselves cause an investigation. For example, in order for a match to light up, a number of conditions are necessary: it must be dry and at the same time not too fragile, there must be enough oxygen in the environment, etc.
An equally important feature of the cause-and-effect relationship is its strict sequence in time: cause preceded investigation. An effect cannot occur before the cause or simultaneously with it. It always comes a little bit later. However, precedence in time is, although necessary, but not a sufficient condition for a given phenomenon to be considered a cause. Not everything that happened before a phenomenon serves as its cause. “After this” does not always mean “therefore” or “because of this.” Summer always follows spring, autumn follows summer, etc., but spring is not the cause of summer, and summer is not the cause of autumn. The change of seasons is caused by the movement of the Earth around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth's axis to the plane of its orbit.
When science was not yet sufficiently developed, and scientific knowledge was not the property of a large number of people, people often did not distinguish causality from temporal sequence. This was one of the sources of various superstitions and prejudices, the remnants of which in one form or another have survived to this day. (To this day, many believers are trying to prove the existence of God by violating the cause-and-effect relationship - they pass off the events and phenomena observed in the world around us as a consequence of the activity of a creature they have invented - God, who, in their opinion, is the cause of everything.)
Only human practice serves as a decisive criterion for the correct knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships, including a criterion for distinguishing a causal relationship from a simple sequence in time. Knowledge of causal relationships, in turn, is of great importance for human practice, for scientific foresight, influencing the processes of reality and changing them in the direction necessary for him. (This is why believers are always powerless in practice - no matter how much they cry to God, what they want never happens.)
When considering a causal relationship, it is necessary to take into account that the cause is not always something external in relation to the phenomenon on which it affects. The reasons can be both external and internal. The internal reasons for the change of a given thing are rooted in the nature of this thing itself, representing the interaction of some of its aspects. Internal reasons play a more important role than external ones. Thus, the internal cause of any social revolution is the contradiction between the productive forces and the production relations of a given method of production in a given country, and not the influence of any external forces.
But even in the case when the cause is external, the effect is not simply introduced or created by this cause, but is the result of the interaction of the cause and the phenomenon on which it affects. This is why the same cause can cause different effects. So, under the influence of sunlight, ice melts, a plant absorbs carbon dioxide and grows, a person tans, and complex physiological processes occur in his body. But it happens that different causes cause the same effect. Thus, a low yield of grain crops may be a consequence of either drought, or violation of agrotechnical measures, or improper crop rotation, or the use of bad seeds, etc.
Thus, the cause of the phenomenon is the interaction of either different objects, or sides of one object, or both, i.e., a combination of internal and external factors. “.. Interaction,” wrote F. Engels, “is the true causa finalis of things.”
One of the characteristic features of a cause-and-effect relationship is that the connection between cause and effect does not cease even after the cause has caused the action. This connection persists and develops, which is manifested in the following.
Firstly, the effect, while remaining secondary and dependent on the cause, can reversely influence the cause. Thus, new social ideas and theories are ultimately the result of changes in the economic conditions of society. However, once these ideas and theories arise, they have a strong influence on all aspects of social life, including the economy.
Secondly, cause and effect can change places, and these changes manifest themselves in two ways. They may consist in the fact that the effect becomes the cause, the cause - the effect. For example, if a change in quality is a consequence of quantitative changes, then the new quality is the cause of a new quantity.
An expression of the fact that cause and effect can change places is also that an event that is here or now an effect can be a cause in another connection or at another time. After all, not a single phenomenon is located in any one cause-and-effect relationship, but is included in a whole network of such connections, and therefore, at its different nodes, a phenomenon can act either as a cause or as a consequence. Thus, rain or snow, being a consequence of certain meteorological conditions, may themselves, for example, be the cause of a high harvest, and the harvest may be the reason for strengthening the economy of an agricultural enterprise, etc.
Causal connections are very diverse in nature, forms and meaning. They can differ significantly from each other, since they act in different areas of reality and appear in different forms related to the specifics of these areas. We have already seen, for example, that in the microworld causality does not exist in the same form as in the macroworld. Different forms of motion of matter also correspond to different types of causal connections. It is precisely because of this that, with the help of causal relationships operating in inanimate nature or in the organic world, it is impossible to explain the qualitative feature of the social form of the movement of matter. Social life is based on the production of material goods and the resulting relationships between people. Therefore, much more complex forms of causality are at work here.
There are many reasons behind all phenomena, and especially complex ones. But not all of them have the same meaning. There are main, determining reasons, and non-basic reasons, general and immediate reasons. Among all the reasons, it is very important to find main, decisive. It should be borne in mind that the main ones are, as a rule, internal reasons.
The mixture of main and non-main, main and non-main is characteristic of eclecticism. Its representatives do not highlight the main connections and reasons; for them “everything is equally important.” The development of society, for example, depends on many reasons - on population density and growth, natural conditions, the production of material goods, on existing ideas, theories, etc. In bourgeois sociology, eclectic sociology is still in circulation. "factor theory", according to which all these reasons are equally important. Therefore, it is not able to scientifically solve the problems of social life. Marxist sociology, among all these reasons, finds and highlights the determining, main force of social development - the production of material goods. The role and significance of all other factors in the life of society depend on this reason.
The dialectical-materialist doctrine of causality has great ideological and scientific-atheistic significance and is opposed teleology- idealistic and religious doctrine of purpose. Teleology claims that everything in the world is purposeful because it was intended so by its “creator.” According to the witty remark of F. Engels, according to teleology, cats were created in order to devour mice, mice - to be devoured by cats, and all of nature - to prove the wisdom of the creator.
To support their views, theologians refer, in particular, to living nature, where we are actually faced with the amazing correspondence of organisms and the conditions of their existence, with the perfection of the structure of animals and plants. But, as scientific biology in the person of Darwin and his followers has shown, this relative perfection of organisms is not due to the wisdom of the “creator”, but arose in the course of long evolution as a result of the interaction of organisms with the environment, natural selection and other biological laws.
In nature, everything happens according to natural, objective laws, in particular, due to the causal dependence of phenomena. Goals appear only where rational beings - people - act, i.e. in the process of social development. But although people set certain goals for themselves, this does not negate the objective, causal and natural nature of the development of social life.
When preparing this article, I used the “Initial Course in Philosophy (for students of schools of the foundations of Marxism-Leninism)”, M., ed. "Thought", 1966
The ultimate reason. – Ed.
K. Marxy and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 20, p. 546.
See K. Marx and F. Engels. Soch., vol. 20, p. 350
