Hume on Comparative Analyzing of Causality *

One of the most important causes for comparative studying on philosophical systems is to find their commonalities for responding common questions and to emphasize on their differences for taking functional answers encountering modern philosophical challenges and problems. Here, causality is chosen as the case study. Causality is of the basic philosophical issues that have been continually considered by both Islamic and Western philosophical traditions, but the answers which have been rendered by modern western philosophers with empirical approach and Muslim philosophers, like Mulla Sadra, with intellectual and intuitive approach, is necessitated to compare such answers and clarify the efficacy of each one towards the other one. Mulla Sadra's philosophical, intellectual and illuminative thought in Islamic tradition, in comparison to Hume's modern empirical and phenomenal tendencies, is able to remove fundamental ahead problems concerning causality and to answer skepticism derived from it. In Mulla Sadra's Transcendent Wisdom, since the whole system of being has its plural hierarchical universes in which there are causal longitudinal relations. In fact, for Mulla Sadra, causality is not merely restricted to the natural world, and our phenomenal knowledge about it is inadequate, but whatever we see in the natural world is only the weak and thin level or surface of the deep and fundamental reality of causality. Meantime, for Mulla Sadra, in such the causal relation, the effect has nothing and no reality except it is as the manifestation, shadow and act of the cause.

2011

Causality is one of the most important problems of philosophy. The Ancient Greek philosophers focused on this issue within their studies of the Philosophy of Nature. Investigating the ultimate cause behind the changes in the cosmos, the philosophers maintained that there is a relationship between causes and effects. Major theologies dealt with this issue in line with their teachings. In Islamic tradition, both philosophers (Falâsifah) and theologians (Mutakallimûn) took this question as an ontological problem. The purpose of this study is to analyze the Ash’arite approach to the problem of causality.

This is almost my final paper about David Hume and Al-Ghazali and the problem of causality. Since I am not a native speaker of English, I hope that some of those interested in reading this will get back to me with feeback on how to revise my English in order to avoid "now and then colloquial speech". Feel free to contact me on: [email protected]

The thesis Ghazālī sets out to refute in his celebrated discussion of causality in the Tahāfut al-Falāsifa, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, is not the efficacious connection between cause and effect but the specific doctrine of the neoplatonic Aristotelians whom he calls by their preferred title, the Philosophers:

Hume presents two definitions of cause in his Enquiry which correspond to his two definitions in his Treatise. The first of the definitions is ontological and the second is psychological; indeed, the definitions are extensionally and intensionally distinct. The critical mistake of the skeptical interpretation is the assumption that the two definitions are equivalent, and the critical mistake of the necessitarian is the assumption an association of ideas can be had from one experiment. This paper attempts to clarify Hume’s finally considered position of causality.

We give a brief introduction of Hume’s epistemology and his penetrating analysis of causality. It is pointed out that there are some flaws in his epistemology and his theory of causation. Alternative theories of causation are then briefly introduced. Partly inspired by Hume’s analysis of necessary connexion, we present a new argument of causation. We argue that Hume’s removing necessary connexion from causality can help to provide a promising way to unify the law of causality and indeterminism. We then propose a generalized principle of causality, according to which there are two kinds of causes: concrete causes and universal causes, and correspondingly there are two kinds of effects: lawful events and random events. Each actual effect is composed of both lawful element and random element. A detailed analysis of the motion of objects is also given to support the new principle.

This study investigates one of the basic concepts of science: Causality. It presents an historical perspective of the concept from Hume to today. Our exploration of the terms cause, effect and causality begins with Hume and with contributions of Kant. As a second part, the place of causality in the philosophy of science is examined. The discussion of the concept together with the concepts of determinism, probability, functional relation and uncertainty principle have been taken into account from the standpoint of modern science.

Bilimname, 2020

The aim of this article is to discuss the causality concepts of Muslim scholars (mutakallimūn) in terms of modern physics theories and to shed light on the ongoing debates in this context. It is possible to say that there are three attitudes about causality in the Islamic kalām. The first one is the concepts that adopt the principle of causality based on the theory of nature (ṭabʽ); the second is the concepts of Ashārītes that deny causality and explain the relations between entities in the universe with the concept of possibility based on the theory of custom (ʽādah), and the third one is the understanding of the Baṣra school, which accepts causality in some subjects and explains some issues with the concept of ʽādah. In modern physics, a similar divergence is seen between Newtonian determinist understandings and indeterminist understandings based on Quantum uncertainty. In some recent research, it is argued that there are significant similarities between the principle of quantum uncertainty and the theory of custom. In this article, the causality conceptions of mutakallimūn are addressed with the context of the theories of ʽādah and ṭabʽ. Then analyzes are made on the aspects of these understandings that match and diverge with the idea of causality implied by modern physics. Consequently, a new reading is suggested, taking into account modern physics, based on the theories of mutakallimūn who accept natures and causality in natural beings-especially Abū Isḥāq al-Naẓẓām (d. 231/845)- .

Ilahiyat Studies, 2010

In this short analysis, we will compare Ibn Rushd's justification of the causality principle to the suspicions and objections of al-Ghazālī. Nevertheless, our analysis of the issue will center on al-Ghazālī's and Ibn Rushd's conceptions of nature. Therefore, our article aims at illuminating two points: first, there is a fundamental difference between the conceptions of nature and generation of the two philosophers; second, this structural difference constitutes the real cause of disagreement over the causality principle.