Thomism: Cause/Effect - self-evident?

[Blue_Horizon]

OK there is no doubt a very long history to this topic, especially Post Enlightenment.

If we limit the topic to Aquinas (or at least Thomism)…
(a) Is the truth of these mono-relative (as opposed to correlative) principles considered self-evident and hence assumed without debate?
(b) Or is it considered demonstrable (either apriori or aposteriori)?

My main observations are:

• its analytic (like “father and son”) not synthetic.
• just because “before this” is true does that mean “therefore on account of this” is also true? Not always it seems.

I am not sure how these observations relate to the above questions.

 

[ilikepizza1]

OK there is no doubt a very long history to this topic, especially Post Enlightenment.

If we limit the topic to Aquinas (or at least Thomism)…
(a) Is the truth of these mono-relative (as opposed to correlative) principles considered self-evident and hence assumed without debate?
(b) Or is it considered demonstrable (either apriori or aposteriori)?

My main observations are:

• its analytic (like “father and son”) not synthetic.
• just because “before this” is true does that mean “therefore on account of this” is also true? Not always it seems.

I am not sure how these observations relate to the above questions.

If i recall correctly Aquinas does attempt to put forward some arguments in favor of cause and effect as common sense understands them against the traditional occasionalist arguments. I’ll try to find them, although I do remember not finding them very persuasive.

 

[Linux]

OK there is no doubt a very long history to this topic, especially Post Enlightenment.

If we limit the topic to Aquinas (or at least Thomism)…
(a) Is the truth of these mono-relative (as opposed to correlative) principles considered self-evident and hence assumed without debate?
(b) Or is it considered demonstrable (either apriori or aposteriori)?

My main observations are:

• its analytic (like “father and son”) not synthetic.
• just because “before this” is true does that mean “therefore on account of this” is also true? Not always it seems.

I am not sure how these observations relate to the above questions.

The principle that every effect must have an existential cause is not based on the mere observation of seeing causes and effects. The principle itself is based on the premise that out of nothing comes nothing. Thus anything that begins to exist does so because something which already exists has brought it into existence; given the fact that potentiality or possibility cannot actualize itself from nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

OK there is no doubt a very long history to this topic, especially Post Enlightenment.

If we limit the topic to Aquinas (or at least Thomism)…
(a) Is the truth of these mono-relative (as opposed to correlative) principles considered self-evident and hence assumed without debate?
(b) Or is it considered demonstrable (either apriori or aposteriori)?

My main observations are:

• its analytic (like “father and son”) not synthetic.
• just because “before this” is true does that mean “therefore on account of this” is also true? Not always it seems.

I am not sure how these observations relate to the above questions.

Several observations: First, you are using a lot of terms here that mean nothing to me and perhaps to others. That makes it difficult to answer your questions. Secondly, how much of Thomas have you read? If little or none, where have you gotten your understanding of what Thomas taught?

So I will just say that for Thomas an efficient cause was that which brings about the being of some new being. As you know Thomas observed changes taking place in nature; things were generated and passed away or things changed in other ways. The new being they became or the new way they came to exist, Thomas called an effect. By a posteriori reasoning ( inference or induction by according to him and Aristotle), he postulated an efficient cause, God being the First Efficient cause which causes being per se, operating through secondary or instrumental efficient causes, which cause the " coming to be " or the change from one form of existence to another, but not its " to be. "

I don’t know if this answers your question or not. Hope it helps. I hope Hicetnunc will jump in here.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The principle that every effect must have an existential cause is not based on the mere observation of seeing causes and effects. The principle itself is based on the premise that out of nothing comes nothing. Thus anything that begins to exist does so because something which already exists has brought it into existence; given the fact that potentiality or possibility cannot actualize itself from nothing.

Linux I am not sure why you modify “cause” to “existential cause.” Am I correct in assuming you mean by 'existential cause" the visible 'agent" invariably associated with a visible event (the so-called “effect”). So you are talking about only visible cause/event pairtings?

OK, if it resolves to a different principle “nothing comes from nothing” then I suppose my questions need to be applied to this principle. But before doing that I am not sure I understand what you mean.

If we hold that God can create “something from nothing” then it seems your first “nothing” is not being used in exactly the same sense as your 2nd “nothing” therefore the principle seems to have a weakness? Yet clearly you hold this as an accepted principle. What am I not seeing?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

First, you are using a lot of terms here that mean nothing to me and perhaps to others.

Hello again Linus. When talking to unknown persons on a public English forum I always start with common-sense, everday colloquial english as spoken on the street as much as is possible. Clarifications inevitably need to follow later as persons/context gets sized up.

Secondly, how much of Thomas have you read? If little or none, where have you gotten your understanding of what Thomas taught?

You may treat me as a tabula rasa even if I am not. I often find that even experts end up having arguments because their “cut of the same cloth” is inevitably phase-shifted and hence all the technical words they use differ at the margin.

So I will just say that for Thomas an efficient cause was that which brings about the being of some new being. As you know Thomas observed changes taking place in nature; things were generated and passed away or things changed in other ways. The new being they became or the new way they came to exist, Thomas called an effect. By a posteriori reasoning ( inference or induction by according to him and Aristotle), he postulated an efficient cause

Thats helpful. I was hoping it would be aposteriori reasoning. I need to think a little more on that point.

Relatedly, it therefore seems to rest on other interesting previous assumptions. e.g. underlying identity despite change. That assumption of identity seems to be mechanistic (i.e. the block of ice and the puddle of water 1 hr later are locally connected, therefore the same even if they are very different “things” to the senses).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hello again Linus. When talking to unknown persons on a public English forum I always start with common-sense, everday colloquial english as spoken on the street as much as is possible. Clarifications inevitably need to follow later as persons/context gets sized up.

You may treat me as a tabula rasa even if I am not. I often find that even experts end up having arguments because their “cut of the same cloth” is inevitably phase-shifted and hence all the technical words they use differ at the margin.

Thats helpful. I was hoping it would be aposteriori reasoning. I need to think a little more on that point.

Relatedly, it therefore seems to rest on other interesting previous assumptions. e.g. underlying identity despite change. That assumption of identity seems to be mechanistic (i.e. the block of ice and the puddle of water 1 hr later are locally connected, therefore the same even if they are very different “things” to the senses).

I’m no expert, I am likely to make a mistake at any time. Our resident expert seems to be on holiday. Linus2nd