In order for the 'effect' to precede the 'cause' it still needs to be caused so, in essence, the 'effect' is not preceding the 'cause' because the 'cause' (according to modern thinking) must 'cause' the 'effect.' [I think]
But according to Hume [Part Three, Chapter 13: Will The Sun Rise Tomorrow? of From Socrates to Sartre: the Philosophic Quest by T.Z. Lavine] the "causal principle has no rational basis and if we believe in it it is only through habit or custom." - So, it may just be through habit that we try to ascribe a 'cause' to an 'effect' when it appears that there's a connection with the 'effect' in a later observed, associative 'cause.'
"A cause is an object in constant spatial and temporal conjunction with another such that the experience of one compels the mind to expect the other." - In this case: precede the other.
"After we have experienced A followed by B repeatedly, by the association of ideas we come to 'expect' B to occur after A occurs; we have formed a 'habit' of anticipating that B will occur after A, but even more, we feel 'compelled', we have a feeling of compulsion or propulsion to expect B." - So also we feel compelled to 'make' B follow A by finding the 'cause' to the 'effect', when in fact there may be no 'cause'. And maybe there really is no 'effect.' [You figure that one out] (Okay... maybe I mean that the effect is just an isolated event like Hume talks about) After all, the significance of the 'effect' lies with the 'cause' and vice versa. [Ummm... I think]
"There is only the psychological necessity of our associating ideas with one another."
Be warned that I never TRULY know what I'm talking about; everything's always vague, so I'm not claiming any of this as truth or whatever... just some thoughts... but it was fun to write. |
|
