Recently I have dedicated myself to elaborate some theories and critical foundations in the study of causes, the covid-19 has touched my social scientific side and thanks to this, I want to share with you my progress in what I consider "the causalogy"
It is determined how causology that science that manages to reflect the laws of causes and their reasons; It transcends the epistemological branch, but is founded on the causal principles and the equations of the objective cause.
We must first understand the meaning of causes from a philosophical point of view, as well as analyze the approximations of the cause described by the Aristotelian thought
"Cause" is said in four ways. One of them is that we say cause to the [second] substance and the essence (because the why [of a thing] is ultimately reduced to the concept, and the first why is cause and foundation). In another sense the cause is the matter or the substrate. Thirdly, it is the beginning where the movement comes from. And in the fourth sense, the opposite cause, namely, that for which [the final cause] or the good (since the good is the end of all generation and movement
The four causes
- The material cause
- The formal cause
- The motive or efficient cause
- The final cause
Explanation of Aristotelic causes:
a) The formal cause is the form. Form is the cause of something insofar as it determines that something and makes it what it is. The form cause, then, is the specific cause (that is, that of the species) of the entity in question and that will be more or less realized in the thing.
b) The form is final cause since it constitutes the “end”, that towards which the individual is oriented, “that for which [something is], that is, the good; the good, because what is sought is sought precisely because it represents a good. "The form is the plan or structure considered as informing a particular product of nature or art. The final cause is the same plan considered insofar as it is not yet incorporated in the particular thing, but insofar as nature or art aspire to it.
c) The efficient cause is the motor or stimulus that triggers the development process. As form, as a formal cause, is the cause of what the thing is - that the child is a man, that this table is a table - only form can set in motion: seen in this way, form is efficient cause. Only that as an efficient cause is not found in the individual in question, but in a different one: the child's efficient cause will be the father, that is, the specific form as soon as it is incorporated into the father; The efficient cause of the table will be the carpenter, that is, the "table" shape that the carpenter has in his spirit. While the final cause operates as a goal, so to speak, from the front, the efficient cause operates, instead, "from behind" and is relatively external to the thing in development.
d) The material cause is matter, a passive condition, as we know, but still necessary as a substrate that receives the form and is maintained through change. Matter is what makes this world not a world of pure forms -like that of Platonic ideas-, but a sensible and changing world. And insofar as all sensible substances are made up of matter, and matter means potency, and potency means something not yet realized, and therefore imperfect, it will turn out that all things in this world are imperfect, to a greater or lesser extent, since none comes to fully conform to the form or act. That is why it happens that any definition that is given of sensible things will always be only approximate, because in the world of becoming nothing is entirely or perfectly real, but always involves a moment of "matter", that is, of possibility or potentiality not yet performed.
Dialectics of the cause by Aristotle
However, my criticism of the definition of the causes of Aristotle is largely focused on the ontological approach, and not natural -as I will refer later- The problem is not and does not remain in the cause, it is only a matter of perspective, therefore, I raised the equations with a qualitative and existentialist approach (including metaphysical topics of the support of the causes)
Bases of theory by Bravo
Of course, in general, when we talk about causes and principles we jump to epistemology, which insists on the currents of thought and their depth; one of them is the branch of philosophy, better known as Gnoseology, which studies the origins, causes and principles. However, my studies have led me to understand reality with a greater sense of detail in this regard, clearly considering dedicating a branch of philosophy exclusively to the study of causes.
Causal Equations
- Law of Natural Cause:
It is determined by the facts and events that work natively, that is, originating and biological. They operate constantly and do not require any external agent to carry them out.
Example A = A
- Law of the Plausible Cause:
It is considered “plausible” because it is essentially a possible and verifiable cause, but supported or promoted by another cause, it can even be a third cause.
Example:
If A = ?
B = C
and AB = DC
Then A = D
- Law of Indefinite Cause:
It is partially recognized as "reason that has no reason" in this way, it does not have a verifiable character, but it is not ruled out either.
Example:
A = ?
? = A
- Law of the two causes o Law of the Binary Cause:
Categorical as binary due to the fusion of two causal agents that originate one; This law tries to discover the meaning of the combinations and their result.
Example:
A + B = AB
- Law of the Omitted Cause o Law of the Opposition to the Cause:
It happens when a cause is contradicted, omitted or denied for certain reasons, likewise, creating new prospects to question and exemplify the cause.
A is not B
But B = C
Then A = C (?)
We must define the action and the cause, as well as its operation:
- There is no action without cause, but there is also no cause without action
Action conditions the cause and this reminds us of Newton's laws with his prospect of "all action has reaction" contextualizing it in the praxiology of causes
Farewell
Thank you very much for reading my theories, I hope with great philosophical enthusiasm that you liked them. I ask that this publication does not remain as a plot gap or logical discrepancy, give me your opinion in order to continue growing and perfecting my postulate.
