Kant - an exploration into psychology
Description
Vocal Characteristics
Language
EnglishVoice Age
Middle Aged (35-54)Accents
British (General)Transcript
Note: Transcripts are generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors.
Humes argument concerning cause ality. Now let us consider Hughes puzzle concerning cause ality Given two distinct states of affairs, one is not guilty of self contradiction. If one affirms the existence ofthe the one but denies the existence of the other. Since cause ality holds between distinct states of affairs, there is no strictly logical connexion between cause and effect. Given this, we might say that a casual Connexion consists in the operation of some force that demands the existence of the one event given the existence of the other. But this is not a tenable proposal. If by force is meant, causal necessity than that view is an innocuous triviality. If by force is meant, logical necessity than that view is simply false, as we've just seen. If by force is meant some constituent of the spatial temporal world, then there can be no legitimate reason to believe in its existence. As the following argument shows, We perceive events and regularities among events if they exist. Forces are connexions among events and are not events themselves. What we perceive gives us a basis for believing that certain kinds of events are likely to accompany certain other kinds of events. But what we perceive does not give us any basis for perceiving that things altogether different from events are likely to accompany events. Therefore, there could be no empirical basis for a belief in forces. So if there is to be any rational justification for such a belief, it must be strictly logical or air. Priore I. But that sort of justification is not an option here. Being spatial temporal entities, forces can only be known on empirical grounds. There are no necessary and therefore no casual relations between distinct events or at least none We could have any legitimate reason to believe in.