Skip to main content
added 50 characters in body
Source Link
RodolfoAP
  • 8.1k
  • 1
  • 16
  • 34

YES, for at least two reasons:

  1. If the property is provided by an analytic predicate (cannot be a synthetic predicate: it would be unrelated information), like "John is a bachelor", then such definition causes John to be not married. For example: if John is a bachelor (cause), then, he's married (consequence).

  2. For Hume, causality is the habit of constant conjunction; so, if you get the habit of listening that all A's are B's and all B's are C's, then you assume that any A becoming B (cause) is then (consequence) a C. For example: since I know that A is B, then, I know that A is C.

But also, NO, for at least one reason:

  1. Properties do not cause effects: is its usage that produce effects. the statement "A is B" has no relationship whatsoever with C until is rationally (by Reason) interpreted using Logic (the rules Reason follows). Only when reason starts it's logical process, the observer can deduce "then, A is C".

YES, for at least two reasons:

  1. If the property is provided by an analytic predicate (cannot be a synthetic predicate: it would be unrelated information), like "John is a bachelor", then such definition causes John to be not married. For example: if John is a bachelor (cause), then, he's married (consequence).

  2. For Hume, causality is the habit of constant conjunction; so, if you get the habit of listening that all A's are B's and all B's are C's, then you assume that any A becoming B (cause) is then (consequence) a C. For example: since I know that A is B, then, I know that A is C.

But also, NO, for at least one reason:

  1. Properties do not cause effects: is its usage that produce effects. the statement "A is B" has no relationship whatsoever with C until is interpreted using Logic. Only when reason starts it's logical process, the observer can deduce "then, A is C".

YES, for at least two reasons:

  1. If the property is provided by an analytic predicate (cannot be a synthetic predicate: it would be unrelated information), like "John is a bachelor", then such definition causes John to be not married. For example: if John is a bachelor (cause), then, he's married (consequence).

  2. For Hume, causality is the habit of constant conjunction; so, if you get the habit of listening that all A's are B's and all B's are C's, then you assume that any A becoming B (cause) is then (consequence) a C. For example: since I know that A is B, then, I know that A is C.

But also, NO, for at least one reason:

  1. Properties do not cause effects: is its usage that produce effects. the statement "A is B" has no relationship whatsoever with C until is rationally (by Reason) interpreted using Logic (the rules Reason follows). Only when reason starts it's logical process, the observer can deduce "then, A is C".
Source Link
RodolfoAP
  • 8.1k
  • 1
  • 16
  • 34

YES, for at least two reasons:

  1. If the property is provided by an analytic predicate (cannot be a synthetic predicate: it would be unrelated information), like "John is a bachelor", then such definition causes John to be not married. For example: if John is a bachelor (cause), then, he's married (consequence).

  2. For Hume, causality is the habit of constant conjunction; so, if you get the habit of listening that all A's are B's and all B's are C's, then you assume that any A becoming B (cause) is then (consequence) a C. For example: since I know that A is B, then, I know that A is C.

But also, NO, for at least one reason:

  1. Properties do not cause effects: is its usage that produce effects. the statement "A is B" has no relationship whatsoever with C until is interpreted using Logic. Only when reason starts it's logical process, the observer can deduce "then, A is C".