Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Immanent causation—causation where cause and effect are identical or overlapping—is a coherent notion defended by Aristotle and revived by E.J. Lowe.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The logical law that cause and effect must be distinct prevents identity; if A causes A, we cannot explain why causation occurs at this moment versus another.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Immanent causation conflates efficient causation with formal causation; Aristotle's four causes address different explanatory roles that shouldn't collapse into one.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Modern physics requires causal relata to be spatiotemporally discrete events; identical or overlapping cause-effect pairs violate this empirical framework.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Activities like thinking and perceiving have their cause and effect simultaneous and identical, making immanent causation observable in mental acts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Aristotle's actuality (energeia) explains how a thing can be both cause and effect without infinite regress, solving a fundamental metaphysical problem.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural substances continuously actualize their own potentials; this self-causation is coherent and avoids requiring external causes for all change.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.