J
JDaniel
Guest
Is the First Cause Dependent upon an Effect?
Rossum is arguing that in order for there to be that which is called a “First Cause,” there must be a contemporaneous effect. The question is, is this true?
Certainly, in the world of words, i.e., from the standpoint of the logic of language (grammar), and those things which the language stands as a sign for, a cause is not a cause until it can be associated with an effect. In other words, a cause can only be a cause simultaneous with the recognition of (at least) its initial effect, but not until then. However, from an ontological perspective, there is a problem with this scenario.
But the problem is not a simple one for (at least) two reasons: first, from an ontological point of view, an effect cannot pre-exist its cause. And second: nor can an effect be its own cause, for again it would then pre-exist itself. Either way, this would be clearly contradictory. Besides, we know from all of our investigations of cause-effect events in the world, that the cause always anticipates the effect. In my opinion Rossum’s entire line of reasoning, which says that a “cause is not a cause until it produces an effect,” rests on sophistry.
As explained by St. Thomas, the middle term of a demonstrative syllogism represents a certain and necessary cause or principle. The derivative word here for ‘cause’ is the word: principle. ‘Principle’ he defines as: “that from which anything flows in any manner whatsoever.” - (Summa, Book I, q. 33, a. 1). Further, he says, that a principle is not a cause, per se, although it may be a cause, as a parent is the cause of its child. He goes on to teach that there are principles that are not causes, e.g., a point on a line is not the cause of the line; but, that every cause is a principle.
Principle implies orderly origin but does not imply dependence: which is interesting. What is interesting about this is that the dependence St. Thomas suggests is of a different sort than what is being argued for by Rossum. A cause, he says, is indeed a principle, but it is a principle from which anything proceeds “with dependence.” In other words, the effect depends on the cause rather than the other way around. A cause is that on which the effect depends in order to come to be or to simply be.
Now, the word principle is from late middle English, from old French, from Latin principium ‘source’, principia (plural) ‘foundations’, from princeps, princip- ‘first, chief’ (- The Oxford Dictionaries on line). As used in the Latin, it is: that from which anything flows in any manner whatsoever. ‘Cause’ is in the order of ‘principle’. The pairing of the words: ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, was derived from the need to communicate the fact that when certain things occurred, certain other things were produced always, or for the most part, as a result.
But, it is not a bad definition to call the principle of anything that from which the thing begins, since principium means ‘beginning’, i.e., ‘source’. When St. Thomas speaks of ‘First Cause’ he is speaking about this idea of ‘cause’, not the exsanguinated, modern meaning which places it in tandem with ‘effect’. Correctly speaking, First Cause has to do with its action of being the beginning of all chains of events, including their continuous maintenance, as they move, change and exist in space-time. The beginning of the universe is merely one of trillions of such activities, albeit an all-important one (to us). And, even if our universe exists in a multi-verse landscape, there is no reason to conclude that it, too, did not have a beginning. No finite thing, or even a collection of finite things, can be the source, beginning, or cause of itself.
God bless,
jd
Rossum is arguing that in order for there to be that which is called a “First Cause,” there must be a contemporaneous effect. The question is, is this true?
Certainly, in the world of words, i.e., from the standpoint of the logic of language (grammar), and those things which the language stands as a sign for, a cause is not a cause until it can be associated with an effect. In other words, a cause can only be a cause simultaneous with the recognition of (at least) its initial effect, but not until then. However, from an ontological perspective, there is a problem with this scenario.
But the problem is not a simple one for (at least) two reasons: first, from an ontological point of view, an effect cannot pre-exist its cause. And second: nor can an effect be its own cause, for again it would then pre-exist itself. Either way, this would be clearly contradictory. Besides, we know from all of our investigations of cause-effect events in the world, that the cause always anticipates the effect. In my opinion Rossum’s entire line of reasoning, which says that a “cause is not a cause until it produces an effect,” rests on sophistry.
As explained by St. Thomas, the middle term of a demonstrative syllogism represents a certain and necessary cause or principle. The derivative word here for ‘cause’ is the word: principle. ‘Principle’ he defines as: “that from which anything flows in any manner whatsoever.” - (Summa, Book I, q. 33, a. 1). Further, he says, that a principle is not a cause, per se, although it may be a cause, as a parent is the cause of its child. He goes on to teach that there are principles that are not causes, e.g., a point on a line is not the cause of the line; but, that every cause is a principle.
Principle implies orderly origin but does not imply dependence: which is interesting. What is interesting about this is that the dependence St. Thomas suggests is of a different sort than what is being argued for by Rossum. A cause, he says, is indeed a principle, but it is a principle from which anything proceeds “with dependence.” In other words, the effect depends on the cause rather than the other way around. A cause is that on which the effect depends in order to come to be or to simply be.
Now, the word principle is from late middle English, from old French, from Latin principium ‘source’, principia (plural) ‘foundations’, from princeps, princip- ‘first, chief’ (- The Oxford Dictionaries on line). As used in the Latin, it is: that from which anything flows in any manner whatsoever. ‘Cause’ is in the order of ‘principle’. The pairing of the words: ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, was derived from the need to communicate the fact that when certain things occurred, certain other things were produced always, or for the most part, as a result.
But, it is not a bad definition to call the principle of anything that from which the thing begins, since principium means ‘beginning’, i.e., ‘source’. When St. Thomas speaks of ‘First Cause’ he is speaking about this idea of ‘cause’, not the exsanguinated, modern meaning which places it in tandem with ‘effect’. Correctly speaking, First Cause has to do with its action of being the beginning of all chains of events, including their continuous maintenance, as they move, change and exist in space-time. The beginning of the universe is merely one of trillions of such activities, albeit an all-important one (to us). And, even if our universe exists in a multi-verse landscape, there is no reason to conclude that it, too, did not have a beginning. No finite thing, or even a collection of finite things, can be the source, beginning, or cause of itself.
God bless,
jd
