New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Help analyzing arguments regarding the definition of reason

שו”תCategory: philosophyHelp analyzing arguments regarding the definition of reason
asked 8 years ago

Hi Michael,

I need to check something about the differences between 2 definitions of the word “reason” . The definitions are:

A.
When I say that B is the reason for A,
I mean that if B wouldn’t have happened,
and also everything else in the world would stay the same,
then A also wouldn’t have happened.

on.

When I say that B is the reason for A,
I mean that B caused, or somehow responsible,
to the creation of A’s occurrence.”

I read somewhere that definition B actually gives a synonym for the word “reason” as a definition (normally it is cause and/or responsible), and definition A is good because it defines “by way of negation”.

Do you agree with this? What do you think about these definitions?


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 8 years ago
Not true. Definition A is very problematic because it focuses on the logical component of causality and ignores the physical component. Without cold there is no rain, is that why cold is the cause of rain? This is a correlation, not a cause. Definition A gives a sufficient condition for causality, not an exhaustive definition of it (if definition A does not hold, it is indeed not causality. But if it does hold, it does not mean that it is causality. Maybe it is just a correlation). I expanded on this in my book, The Science of Freedom, Chapter 5-6.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button