Causality according to the laws of nature is not the only causality from which the appearances of the world can be deduced.
Physical is as distinct from moral causality in the order of grace as in the order of nature.
The law of motivation is, like all causality, merely the form of the phenomenon.
And unfortunately they do not destroy the link of causality between drink and crime.
The sense of causality is not something that is innate in human nature.
The principle of natural causality is not self-contradictory.
The principle of causality is a synthetic judgment in which no connection is discoverable between its subject and its predicate.
The cosmological unconditioned is proved to exist by the argument of the thesis, and its existence is at once interpreted as establishing at least in this one case the actuality of free spontaneous causality.
Kant’s diffuse and varying mode of statement may conceal but never conflicts with that thesis, which consists in the contention that the category of causality is a necessary and invariable factor in all consciousness.
In modern times the most noted skeptic was David Hume, who attempted to show that the most fundamental categories of thought, such as substance and causality, are illusory, and thereby to undermine the fabric of knowledge.
Moral causality is insufficient to enable a man to perform salutary acts.
Upon exactly parallel lines lie the references to causality in the controversy.
The assumption of freedom either does or does not contradict the principle of causality.
For we are here speaking of an absolutely first beginning not in time, but in causality.
Kant, we must bear in mind, accepts much of Hume’s criticism of the category of causality.
Every change has a cause which evinces its causality in the whole time in which the change takes place.
Space, time and causality do not appertain to him, for he at once forms their essence and transcends them.
The most serious defect in this reduced list, from the Kantian point of view, is its omission of causality.
And that causality, not being subject to time, does not require to stand under another cause as its effect.
Space, time, and the resulting possibility of dynamical causality supply the conditions for real opposition.
Both it and its causality lie outside the empirical series; only the effects fall within the realm of experience.
Now for ordinary consciousness the concept of causality has a very indefinite meaning, and a very wide application.
Now there is nothing to prevent us from attributing to the transcendental object a causality which is not phenomenal.
And even this religion of enlightenment and of the fixed causality of the universe has had to find a place for prayer.
According to the former, freedom must be postulated because otherwise the principle of causality would contradict itself.
And if so fundamental a principle as that of causality is not self-evident, are there any principles which can make this claim?
Any other view must involve the application of the categories, especially those of substance and causality, to the thing in itself.
The schema of causality is necessary succession in time, and it is through this, its time aspect, that Kant approaches the principle.
This difficulty arises from failure to appreciate the central thesis upon which Kant’s proof of the principle of causality ultimately rests.
Then there is the false idea that all causality is mechanistic and that there is nothing in the universe which is not mathematically calculable.
Now it is not to be denied that those who speak of a spiritual causality in life have contributed no less to bringing about confusion of thought.
As the general principle of causality is of an irrational character, the same must be true of those particular judgments which are based upon it.
Causality is regarded solely from the point of view of material causes, that is to say the cause of a pot is clay and not the action of the potter.
Viewed in this manner, in terms of the category of causality, an object signifies a necessitated combination of interconnected qualities or effects.
The principle of causality is applicable to everything experienced, for the sufficient reason that experience is itself possible only in terms of it.
If, therefore, all causality is possible only according to the laws of nature, the principle contradicts itself when taken in unlimited universality.
The assertion is required in order to save the principle of causality from self-contradiction; the denial is also necessary, and for the same reason.
As the principle of causality is that every event must have an antecedent cause, it follows that where there is no sequence there can be no causation.
Causality concerns only the order, not the lapse, of time; and the sequence relation must remain even though there is no interval between the two events.
A deduction from the dual application of the conception of causality has, therefore, no bearing upon the question of the possibility of this further category.
Such action must indeed be possible under natural conditions, but such conditions do not determine its rightness, and consequently cannot determine its causality.
The unusual and somewhat scholastic character of the proof also appears in Kant’s substitution of the principle of sufficient reason for the principle of causality.
Whereas a relation of causality can never be intuited as holding between two events, but only thought into them, spatial and temporal relations are direct objects of the mind.
The study of the physical sciences has led to a general acceptance of a principle of causality which is of such a kind that there seems no place in the universe for human freedom.
On the one view, this distinction is mediated by the relational categories of the understanding, especially by that of causality; on the other view, it is grounded in the Ideas of Reason.
What, then, was Berkeley's objection to these algebraic methods of inference and to the notions of space, matter, independent existence, and efficient causality which these methods involve?
It is one of the demerits of the traditional theory of causality that it has created an artificial opposition between determinism and the freedom of which we are introspectively conscious.
The conception of causality, for instance, necessarily involves the notion of time-sequence; apart from time it is the bare, empty, and entirely unspecified conception of a sufficient ground.
The emotions felt in his presence being the ultimate issue and term of his effect in us, the counterpart or shadow of those emotions is regarded as the first and deepest factor in his causality.
The three analogies thus treat of three aspects of the same problem, the first connecting with the category of substance, the second with that of causality, and the third with that of reciprocity.
That each such successive series in the world can only have a relatively primary beginning, and must always be preceded by some other state of things, is no sufficient objection to such causality.
The determinate category of causality is the conception of events conditioning one another in time; indeterminately employed it signifies only the quite indefinite notion of a ground or condition.
The passages which Beattie quotes from the Treatise are exactly those that were necessary to reveal the full scope of Hume’s revolutionary teaching in respect to the general principle of causality.
Only if the principle of causality can be established prior to all specific experience, only if we can predetermine experience as necessarily conforming to it, are empirical arguments valid at all.
Our other natural belief, in the dynamical interdependence of events, as expressed through the principle of causality, leads, however, to the opposite conclusion, that the known objects are merely mental.