Kant's Proof of Causality

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Kant's Proof of Causality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is a rough sketch of Kant's Proof of Causality based on events not discrete object.

1. All causes and effects are perceived as appearances an experienced.

2. What is cause and effect is always an event.

3. In an event, a State-A [cause] changes to new and different State-B.

4. Appearance and Perception of State-B is always preceded by Perception of State-A.

5. As such there is an inherent order of from State-A to State-B in any event.
  • Kant illustrated the default order in the case of a ship moving downstream.
    The perception of the ship downstream [State-B] is followed from the perception of the ship upstream [State-A]. It is IMPOSSIBLE that the ship is perceive in this case, as first downstream [State-B] then upstream [State-A].
6. So a necessary order [A to B] of POSSIBILTIY and necessity must exists a priori before any event is possible to be perceived and experienced.

7. This necessary order is the inherent a priori Law of Causality, i.e. that state for any effect there must be a cause.

8. So Kant approach is that whatever event that is to be perceived and experienced must be grounded upon the Law of Causality a priori in contrast to Hume basis that Law of Causality cannot be determined from experiences [a posteriori] and psychology.

9. Having countered Hume's challenge, Kant has to prove where does the Law of Causality emerge a priori from.

10. Kant proved the Concept and Law of Causality as Category or Pure Concept of the Understanding via the Transcendental Deduction.

...................
Therefore Kant had soundly proved the necessity of the Law of Causality not directly from experience but rather from an a priori basis.

There are objectors to Kant's Transcendental Deduction, but that is because they [as Transcendental Realists] have not fully understood [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophy on this matter and on its whole context.

Basically the problem with the objections can be further explained down the contention between realism and anti-realism.
All Issues of Philosophy are Reducible to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

Views?
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Nov 26, 2021 6:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant's Proof of Causality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here one of Kant's argument from the CPR.
Note Kant has a few versions of the argument for the Law of Causality.

.........................
1. That something happens, i.e. that ‘something’, or some ‘state’ which did not previously exist, comes-to-be, cannot be perceived unless it is preceded by an Appearance which does not contain in itself this state. A192 B237

2. For an Event2 which should follow upon an empty Time, that is, a coming- to-be preceded by no state of Things, is as little capable of being apprehended as empty Time itself.

3. Every Apprehension of an Event3 is therefore a Perception that follows upon another Perception.

4. But since, as I have above illustrated by reference to the appearance of a house, this likewise happens in all Synthesis of Apprehension,
the Apprehension of an Event is not yet thereby distinguished from other apprehensions.

5. But, as I also note, in an Appearance which contains a happening [an Event] (the preceding state of the Perception we may entitle A, and the succeeding B) B can be apprehended only as following upon A;
the Perception A cannot follow upon B but only precede it.

6. For instance, I see a ship move down stream. My Perception of its lower position follows upon the Perception of its position higher up in the stream,
and it is impossible that in the Apprehension of this Appearance the ship should first be perceived lower down in the stream and afterwards higher up.

7. The Order in which the Perceptions succeed one another in Apprehension is in this instance determined, and to this Order, Apprehension is bound down.

8. In the previous example of a house my Perceptions
could begin with the Apprehension of the roof and end with the basement, or
could begin from below and end above;
and I could similarly apprehend the Manifold of the Empirical Intuition either from right to left or from left to right. A193 B238

9. In the Series of these Perceptions there was thus no Determinate order specifying at what point 4 I must begin in order to connect the Manifold Empirically.

10. &11 But in the Perception of an Event [not object] there is always a Rule that makes the Order in which the Perceptions (in the Apprehension of this Appearance) follow upon one another a Necessary Order.

12. In this case, therefore, we must derive
• the Subjective Succession of Apprehension from
• the Objective Succession of Appearances.

13. Otherwise the Order of Apprehension is entirely undetermined, and does not distinguish one Appearance from another.

14. Since the merely Subjective Succession is altogether arbitrary, it does not by itself prove anything as to the manner in which the Manifold is connected in the Object.

15. The Objective Succession will therefore consist in that Order of the Manifold of Appearance according to which, in conformity with a Rule,
the Apprehension of that which happens follows upon the Apprehension of that which precedes.

16. Thus only can I be justified in asserting, not merely of my Apprehension, but of Appearance itself, that a Succession is to be met with in it.

17. This is only another way of saying that I cannot arrange the Apprehension otherwise than in this very Succession.

18. In conformity with such a Rule there must lie in that which precedes an Event,
the Condition of a Rule according to which this Event invariably and Necessarily follows. A194 B239

19. I cannot reverse this order, proceeding back from the Event to determine through Apprehension that which precedes.

20. For Appearance never goes back from the succeeding to the preceding point of Time, though it does indeed stand in Relation to some preceding point of Time.

21. The advance, on the other hand, from a Given Time to the Determinate Time that follows is a Necessary Advance.

22. Therefore, since there certainly is something that follows [i.e. that is apprehended as following],
I must refer it Necessarily to something else which precedes it and upon which it follows in conformity with a Rule, that is, of Necessity.

23. The Event, as the Conditioned, thus affords reliable evidence of some Condition, and this Condition is what determines the Event.

Kant CPR - NKS' translation.
...................................

That Condition that determines [ground] the Event is the necessary Law of Causality without which there will be no experience of the event.
Post Reply