Skip to main content
Log in

Temporal Relations vs. Logical Reduction: A Phenomenal Theory of Causality

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Axiomathes Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Kant, in various parts of his treatment of causality, refers to determinism or the principle of sufficient reason as an inescapable principle. In fact, in the Second Analogy we find the elements to reconstruct a purely phenomenal determinism as a logical and tautological truth. I endeavour in this article to gather these elements into an organic theory of phenomenal causality and then show, in the third section, with a specific argument which I call the “paradox of phenomenal observation”, that this phenomenal determinism is the only rational approach to causality because any logico-reductivistic approach, such as the Humean one, would destroy the temporal order and so the very possibility to talk of a causal relation. I also believe that, all things said, Kant did not achieve a much greater comprehension of the problem than Hume did, in his theory of causality, for he did not free a phenomenal approach from the impasse of reductivism as his reflections on “simultaneous causation” and “vanishing quantities” indeed show, and this I will argue in Sect. 4 of this article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Reichenbach (1938, p. 356).

  2. “In the [field of] appearance there is no difference of the real that is the smallest, just as in the magnitude of times there is no time that is the smallest.” Kant (1956, p. 231).

  3. Kant (1956, p. 231).

  4. Hume (1910, Sects. VI, VIII and X).

  5. Kant (1956, p. 221).

  6. See footnote 3.

  7. See footnote 3.

  8. Kant (1956, p. 125).

  9. Hume (1910, Sect. IV, part I).

  10. Kant (1956, B247).

  11. Kant (1956, p. 223).

  12. This a priori, a sort of innate idea is not the unlikely stuff that Locke believed it to be, but it will acquire a key role in cognitive science and in evolutionary psychology.

  13. See footnote 11.

  14. Hume (1910, Sect. VII, part II).

  15. Ibid., part I.

  16. Kant (1956, p. 230).

  17. See footnote 14.

  18. See Zubiri’s interpretation of causality as functionality: a primordial apprehension of reality that is prior to the level of logos or reason where Hume places our understanding of causal relations. Fowler (1999).

  19. See Papa-Grimaldi (1998).

  20. Kant (1956, pp. 227–228).

  21. Ibid., p. 228).

  22. Papa-Grimaldi (1996a).

  23. Guyer talks of confusion where Kant introduces the problem of simultaneous causation, a confusion which he explains as rising from Kant simply losing sight of a given temporal order. We are going to see exactly what Kant’s “confusion” consists of, and that it is not so easily amendable as Guyer thinks. Guyer (1987, p. 262).

  24. See footnote 21.

  25. However, for historical purposes we can learn from his Master’s dissertation A Succinct Outline of Some Meditations on Fire exactly how he envisaged this phenomenon.

  26. Papa-Grimaldi (1998, ch. 3).

  27. See footnote 20.

  28. Berkeley (1734, p. 1).

  29. See Kant (1956, p. 125, Sect. I).

  30. Guyer (1987, p. 262).

  31. See footnote 21.

  32. See my discussion of the “Theories of everything” in Papa-Grimaldi (1998).

References

  • Berkeley G (1734) The analyst. In: Wilkins DR (ed, 2002), Online e-text at http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Berkeley/Analyst, cited 22 March, 2008

  • Fowler TB (1999) Causality and power in the philosophy of Xavier Zubiri. Xavier Zubiri Rev 2:83–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyer P (1987) Kant and the claims of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 262

  • Hume D (1910) An enquiry concerning human understanding (Harvard Classics)

  • Kant I (1956) Immanuel Kant’s critique of pure reason tr. N. K. Smith. Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London

  • Papa-Grimaldi A (1996a) The paradox of phenomenal observation. J Br Soc Phenomenol, 27(3):294–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Papa-Grimaldi A (1996b) Why mathematical solutions to Zeno’s paradoxes miss the point. Rev Metaphys 50:299–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Papa-Grimaldi A (1998) Time and reality. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, Chap 3

  • Papa-Grimaldi A (2007) The presumption of movement. Axiomathes 17:137–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach H (1938) Experience and prediction. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p 356

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alba Papa-Grimaldi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Papa-Grimaldi, A. Temporal Relations vs. Logical Reduction: A Phenomenal Theory of Causality. Axiomathes 18, 339–358 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-008-9037-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-008-9037-0

Keywords

Navigation