Is the Cause Always Greater Than or Equal to the Effect?
Because of the recent Marion posts and my growing interest in Marion’s work in general and (in light of my thesis) on Descartes in particular, I thought I’d post a few of my findings over the next few days.
*******
In this section, Marion calls into question Descartes’ use of the principle of causality, claiming that in fact there are instances in which the effect exceeds the cause. For example, Marion writes,
The Cartesian relation compares the reality of the effect to that of the cause and concludes that their equality (=) or the inferiority (<) of the former to the latter. Now, such a quantitative comparison between two terms obviously supposes that they can be arranged together and at the same time in two extremes of an inequality—in short, that they remain stable, contemporaries, both the one and the other in the present. According to the evidence, however, this is a fiction, no doubt one that is epistemologically acceptable by convention, but on that has no phenomenological justification. (i) In the natural attitude, it is proper to the effect to come after the cause; for even if in any given moment (the “shock”) they are contemporaries, it should be conceded that one begins after the other, sometimes when the other ceases. We therefore cannot, with any rigor, compare them in a stable relation, unless by abstracting from temporal succession and the variations it implies. The effect does not follow the cause after a more or less brief encounter—it replaces it as soon as it arises and disqualifies it while confirming it. (ii) From the perspective of the reduction, one sees in addition that the effect is radically given in the causal relation as a phenomenon that begins, arises, shows itself, while the cause at best persists in its appearing, but most often suspends it. The relation therefore cannot be described as if it were deployed spatially (since it flows in time), nor can it be reversed at will to meet the needs of a comparison (since the effect has the peculiar characteristic of arising, the cause of persisting or ceasing). In the relation, the effect therefore shows a massive privilege over the cause; its phenomenality begins with the effect; it continues or finishes its own. Even in the (hypothetical) case of equal “reality” between them, the effect still marks its decisive phenomenological superiority—it alone arrives, comes upon, imposes itself (Being Given, pp. 163-164)
5 Responses so far
3:19 pm
Interesting post. I am working on a paper on Kant’s Second Analogy and the extent to which he provided an answer to Hume with regard to causality. In my research, I decided to look at some of the Thomistic takes on the matter. Clarke, Owens, Gilson, et al.
Well, then I came across this one from Joseph Owens, the title of which grabbed my attention: “Effects Precede Causes.” Huh? Effects Precede Causes? Apparently so. Now that I think about it, in the realist perspective, yes, they do.
Starting with a quote from Aristotle, Owens writes:
“‘… For the seed comes from other individuals which are prior and complete, and the first thing is not seed but the complete being.’ [Metaphysics 12.1072b30-1073a1]
“The setting in which this statement was made was all inclusive. Both nature and heaven depend upon something that is entirely and eternally actual. The ultimate completion and perfection are accordingly not something to be worked out by a cause. Rather, it is something that is there in its finished and complete perfection before there can be any question of a cause going to work. Perfection is what comes first. It is already there. Progress toward it on the temporal level is subsequent. The effects therefore precede their causes. The reason given is cogent. Actuality is more than potentiality. The mere potentiality of a thing in its causes is not enough to account for its actuality in the real world. The effects must therefore in their actuality precede the activity of their causes. Greek thought was adamant in its adherence to the principle that nothing comes from nothing.
“In the Christian context these considerations stand out still more sharply. From Saint Paul [Col 1:17] through Dionysius [Divine Names c. V], the notion that all things exist eternally in God was handed down with enthusiasm. It was strikingly developed against the Aristotelian background in the course of the 13th century. These effects preexist and are pre-contained long before the causes that produce them go into operation. In advance pure actuality, now identified with the unique God of Christian revelation, contains in actual existence all effects and all the perfection of these effects. It contains them completely. They are there, in existence, from the start. In the pure actuality of God all the effects have their basic existence, eternally and perfectly. For this reason they likewise precede in essence, eternally, their production by causes in time. Only subsequently, as Aquinas explains [Quodlibets 8.1c.], do the effects have existence in themselves and in human knowledge.
“Clearly enough, then, from the viewpoint of Christian thinking, the effects in full existence precede the temporal causes that produce them. As existent in pure actuality the effects are strictly identical with their eternally abiding cause. On this humanly incomprehensible level the question whether effects precede causes or vice versa is meaningless and cannot methodically be asked. When asked, it refers to the situation open to the broadest sweep of human observation and deduction. On this radar screen, on which the air levels as well as the ground level of traffic are made manifest simultaneously, the effects are shown to be eternally preexistent while their production is seen taking place in time. From the vantage point of the control tower, the best perspective available to the human mind, the effects undoubtedly precede the causes.
“These reflections may send a cold chill down the marrow of the process philosophers and the progressivists. The perfection men strive so hard to achieve has been in existence long before their efforts. …”
Technology and Culture, Vol. 14, No. 1. (Jan. 1973), pp. 19-21.
12:15 pm
W.,
Thanks for sharing those passages. Any chance that you have an electronic copy of the (I’m assuming) article by Owens, “Effects Precede Causes”?
If so, I’d love a copy. Feel free to email me off-blog about this:
crn[at]pobox[dot]com.
12:11 pm
“The perfection men strive so hard to achieve has been in existence long before their efforts….”
That’s not quite right, is it? A perfection that exists in eternity can’t be said to exist “before” a particular point in time, in the sense that it exists “at” an earlier point in time. A thing that exists in eternity doesn’t exist at any point in time.
Which isn’t to say process philosophers didn’t feel a cold chill at Owens’s reflections, but then if they understood what eternity entails they likely wouldn’t be process philosophers to begin with.
1:53 pm
I know it has been some time, but hopefully Tom will see this.
“The perfection men strive so hard to achieve has been in existence long before their efforts….”
I think in its context and with perhaps some clarification it is right.
A thing that exists in eternity doesn’t exist at any point in time.
Insofar as we are talking about its existence in eternity, yes, I agree with you.
But at whatever point in time men have made effort at achieving some perfection, that effort is preceded by the fact of the existence of the perfection they strive towards.
Viewed another way, when I come to the realization that Christ is the Messiah and Savior and attempt to alter my life accordingly so that I one day arrive at eternal communion with God, it is clear to me that God’s existence and even His calling us towards union with Him precedes our reaction, our efforts.
Does He exist “before” in the realm of eternity? Your point is taken. There is no time in eternity. Thus, as one prof used to say, God has no future. But with time as a fact of our experience, it can be said that God’s existence does precede our individual efforts at striving towards union with Him.
11:20 am
I think some of what is put forth in the article falls under the category of painfully obvious
Leave a comment