Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The Naiyāyika third clause blocks causal transitivity, su... — Carmelics
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Naiyāyika third clause blocks causal transitivity, suggesting the Naiyāyikas are defining causal salience rather than causality per se.

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Most accounts treat causality as a transitive relation: if A causes B and B causes C, then A causes C.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Naiyāyika third clause is used to prevent the cause of a cause (e.g., the potter's parents) from counting as a cause of the effect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Blocking transitivity departs from standard definitions of causality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Many causal theories, including INUS condition accounts (Mackie) and contrastive theories, deliberately block transitivity without thereby reducing to mere salience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Blocking transitivity is a principled metaphysical move to capture productive causal relevance, not evidence that the account is epistemically rather than ontologically oriented.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The Naiyāyika third clause can be read as a metaphysical constraint on causal sufficiency, not a pragmatic filter on explanatory interest.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's efficient cause and Scholastic accounts of proximate versus remote causation similarly restrict causal chains without collapsing into mere salience or explanatory pragmatics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The historical prevalence of non-transitive causal ontologies across traditions suggests transitivity is a contested norm, not the criterion distinguishing metaphysical from epistemic causation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    An account that blocks transitivity better fits the epistemic notion of 'causal ...Aristotle's efficient cause and Scholastic accounts of proximate versus remote c...Blocking transitivity departs from standard definitions of causality.Blocking transitivity is a principled metaphysical move to capture productive ca...
    +5 moreShow less
    Many causal theories, including INUS condition accounts (Mackie) and contrastive...Most accounts treat causality as a transitive relation: if A causes B and B caus...The Naiyāyika third clause can be read as a metaphysical constraint on causal su...The Naiyāyika third clause is used to prevent the cause of a cause (e.g., the po...The historical prevalence of non-transitive causal ontologies across traditions ...

    Similar

    Blocking transitivity departs from standard definitions of causality.85%An account that blocks transitivity better fits the epistemic notion o...83%The Naiyāyika third clause is used to prevent the cause of a cause (e....81%When the contrast situation at the effect-end of the first causal stat...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: early-modern-india
    View source passageHide passage
    The first clause is to prevent self-causation. The import of the second condition is that entities similar to c must always exist with entities similar to e. There must be an invariable or constant conjunction between c-type entities and e-type entities. This rules out objects which just happen to be there, such as, to give the Naiyāyikas’ example, a donkey happening to wander past the pottery just as the potter goes to work. This feature of the account, the insistence that a causal relation ins
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit