Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T00:45:42.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cause

from ENTRIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2016

Tad M. Schmaltz
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Lawrence Nolan
Affiliation:
California State University, Long Beach
Get access

Summary

The notion of causation is central to Descartes’ metaphysics and physics. In his metaphysics, Descartes requires a specific sort of causal principle to support his claim in the Third Meditation that God must be the cause of his idea of God as infinite substance. In the discussion of the foundations of his physics in the Principles of Philosophy (1644), moreover, Descartes appeals to the distinction between God as the “universal and primary cause” of motion and the laws of nature as “secondary and particular causes” of it.

The context for Descartes’ theory of causation is provided by the Aristotelian views that were dominant in early modern Scholasticism. In the second book of his Physics, Aristotle explicates four different kinds of “cause” (aition): material, formal, efficient, and final. The material cause is that out of which something comes to be, the formal cause the form of that which comes to be, the efficient cause the primary source of change, and the final cause that for the sake of which there is a change. For instance, in the case of a bronze statue, the bronze is the material cause, the shape of the statue the formal cause, the sculptor the efficient cause, and the goal of the sculptor in producing the statue the final cause.

In early modern Scholasticism, there is an increasing emphasis on the priority of efficient causes in an account of causation (for this point, see Carraud 2002, ch. 1; Schmaltz 2008, 29–36). Thus, the early modern Scholastic Francisco Suárez (1967, I 384) claimed that efficient causes best reflect his official definition of a cause as that which serves “as a per se principle from which being flows into another.” Material and formal causes fit this definition imperfectly since they do not produce an external effect (“another”) but rather are “intrinsic causes” that constitute the effect. Though the final cause is similar to the efficient cause in being an “extrinsic cause” that produces an external effect, it nonetheless is able to “flow being into another” only by influencing the action of a particular kind of efficient cause, namely, an intellectual agent that cognizes the goal of its action.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, Gordon, and Morris, Katherine. 1996. Descartes’ Dualism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan. 1994. “Descartes's Theory of Modality,” Philosophical Review 103: 639–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carraud, Vincent. 2002. Causa sive ratio. La raison de la cause, de Suarez à Leibniz. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry. 1977. “Descartes on the Creation of the Eternal Truths,” Philosophical Review 86: 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbey, Alan. 1980. “Force and Inertia in the Seventeenth Century: Descartes and Newton,” in Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics, ed. Gaukroger, S.. Sussex: Harvester Press, 230–320.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 1992. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 1983a. “Mind, Body, and the Laws of Nature in Descartes and Leibniz,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 8: 105–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 1983b. “Understanding Interaction: What Descartes Should Have Told Elisabeth,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 21 suppl.: 15–32.Google Scholar
Gueroult, Martial. 1980. “The Metaphysics and Physics of Force in Descartes,” in Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics, ed. Gaukroger, S.. Sussex: Harvester Press, 196–229.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. 1979. “Force (God) in Descartes’ Physics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10: 113–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1985. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil, trans. Farrer, A.. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Lennon, Thomas. 1998. “The Cartesian Dialectic of Creation,” in The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, vol. 1, ed. Garber, D. and Ayers, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 331–62.Google Scholar
Loeb, Louis. 1985. “Replies to Daisie Radner's ‘Is There a Problem of Cartesian Interaction?,’” Journal of the History of Philosophy 23: 227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machamer, Peter, and McGuire, J. E.. 2009. Descartes's Changing Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, Peter. 1993. “Descartes on Mind-Body Interaction and the Conservation of Motion,” Philosophical Review 102: 155–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, Eileen. 1987. “Mind-Body Interaction and Metaphysical Consistency: A Defense of Descartes,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 25: 227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radner, Daisie. 1985. “Is There a Problem of Cartesian Interaction?,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 23: 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remnant, Peter. 1979. “Descartes: Body and Soul,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 9: 377–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Robert. 1982. “The ‘Scandal’ of Cartesian Interactionism,” Mind 91: 20–37.Google Scholar
Schmaltz, Tad M. 2011. “Causa Sui and Created Truth in Descartes,” in The Ultimate Why Question: Why Is there Anything at All Rather than Nothing Whatsoever?, ed. Wippel, J.. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 109–24.Google Scholar
Schmaltz, Tad M. 2008. Descartes on Causation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmaltz, Tad M. 1992. “Sensation, Occasionalism, and Descartes’ Causal Principles,” in Minds, Ideas, and Objects: Essays on the Theory of Representation in Modern Philosophy, ed. Cummins, P. D. and Zoeller, G.. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Press, 37–56.Google Scholar
Smith, Norman (Kemp). 1902. Studies in the Cartesian Philosophy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Suárez, Francisco. 1967 (1866). Disputationes metaphysicae, 2 vols. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Wells, Norman. 1982. “Descartes’ Uncreated Eternal Truths,” New Scholasticism 56: 185–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1978. Descartes: The Project of Pure Inquiry. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Cause
  • Edited by Lawrence Nolan, California State University, Long Beach
  • Book: The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon
  • Online publication: 05 January 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894695.042
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Cause
  • Edited by Lawrence Nolan, California State University, Long Beach
  • Book: The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon
  • Online publication: 05 January 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894695.042
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Cause
  • Edited by Lawrence Nolan, California State University, Long Beach
  • Book: The Cambridge Descartes Lexicon
  • Online publication: 05 January 2016
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894695.042
Available formats
×