1464 Words6 Pages
Metaphysics Introduction Philosophers love to argue points or defend points that seem either brutally obvious to lay people or so obscure as to wonder about the mental health of the philosopher. For some philosophers, nitpicking and countering previously accepted arguments about causes of actions is along the way totally confusing a college student desperately trying to grasp the mysterious ideas a way of life. For example, Wayne Davis references a way to disprove the "causal theory" (it holds that "actions done for a reason are explained by the agent's beliefs and desires") (Davis, 2005, p. 58). Mary, for example, turned on the light switch not because she had any particular belief that there was too much light but because she believed there was not enough light. The argument ensuing from that position (based on Donald Davidson's theory) is: even if "…beliefs and desires cause actions that are done for reasons, the contents of those beliefs and desires are irrelevant" to the fact that Mary produced the action at the light switch (Davis, 58). Hence, Davis has proved that since the reasons why Mary acted are irrelevant, from that perspective the causal theory can thus be undermined (58). Meanwhile, the question, "what is a cause" will be approached in the philosophical / metaphysical sense in this paper. What is a Cause? Why search for an analysis of causation in the first place? (Liebesman, 2011). David Lewis offers this reason: the myriad variables of causation
Open Document