This is the kind of shit I wasted my teen years on. I found it as I search for the source of my adult misery, the possible result of an absense I cannot possibly begin to explain...
About two centuries ago, Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume demonstrated through the sheer bluntness of logic that a "cause" by the definition we typically think of it as, does not actually exist. This displays limitations of our senses almost perfectly but marks us as creatures who simply assume too much. Hume showed the world that causality is not something we actually see, but merely the result of us interpreting linear events. To use Progoff's example; "all we actually percieve is one billiard ball touching another with a certain force, and then we see the second ball move away. We do not actually 'see' the causality; we only infer it." (47).
Regardless if "cause and effect" is percieved literally or not, it's almost instictual for us to apply it to our daily lives. In many cases, it's perfectly benificial. When one takes into consideration the judicial system in our society, "cause and effect" becomes blatantly apparent under the surnames action and consequence. If you commit a crime, some form of punishment is in store. This also applies to nearly all world religions. Consult any theistic values and you will find the same basic message; one must do or believe this or that in order to be happy, or else suffer this or that form of damnation. Nietzche would call this "immortal unreason" (59). I'd prefer to call it "linear reciprocity" because it is a mutual relationship between action and consequence over time. Here we have the fingers of "cause and effect" running through the hair of two critically important aspects of society. On both accounts, a firm belief in "cause and effect" maintains a balance in morality. For the most part, people know the difference between right and wrong, with perhaps a grey area here and there, as a result of consequence.
I would never contest the fact that the phenomenon of "cause and effect" is more or less necessary for our societies to function and develop, however I will not agree that it's entirely reliable. The fault lies in our hands because we do have boundries on our perception that we don't always recognize. It becomes natural, when attempting to solve a given problem, to stop searching for the source once an apparent source has been found. Neitzsche would call this "the error of confusing cause with consequence.".
About two centuries ago, Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume demonstrated through the sheer bluntness of logic that a "cause" by the definition we typically think of it as, does not actually exist. This displays limitations of our senses almost perfectly but marks us as creatures who simply assume too much. Hume showed the world that causality is not something we actually see, but merely the result of us interpreting linear events. To use Progoff's example; "all we actually percieve is one billiard ball touching another with a certain force, and then we see the second ball move away. We do not actually 'see' the causality; we only infer it." (47).
Regardless if "cause and effect" is percieved literally or not, it's almost instictual for us to apply it to our daily lives. In many cases, it's perfectly benificial. When one takes into consideration the judicial system in our society, "cause and effect" becomes blatantly apparent under the surnames action and consequence. If you commit a crime, some form of punishment is in store. This also applies to nearly all world religions. Consult any theistic values and you will find the same basic message; one must do or believe this or that in order to be happy, or else suffer this or that form of damnation. Nietzche would call this "immortal unreason" (59). I'd prefer to call it "linear reciprocity" because it is a mutual relationship between action and consequence over time. Here we have the fingers of "cause and effect" running through the hair of two critically important aspects of society. On both accounts, a firm belief in "cause and effect" maintains a balance in morality. For the most part, people know the difference between right and wrong, with perhaps a grey area here and there, as a result of consequence.
I would never contest the fact that the phenomenon of "cause and effect" is more or less necessary for our societies to function and develop, however I will not agree that it's entirely reliable. The fault lies in our hands because we do have boundries on our perception that we don't always recognize. It becomes natural, when attempting to solve a given problem, to stop searching for the source once an apparent source has been found. Neitzsche would call this "the error of confusing cause with consequence.".
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
Damn glad to hear you are running!