Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T05:25:10.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Defense of Substance Causation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

ANN WHITTLE
ANN WHITTLE*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

That there is no substance causation is often treated as the default position. My aim in this paper is primarily one of burden shifting: opponents of substance causation must do more to defend their position. After outlining the thesis I wish to defend, I present a simple argument for substance causation, arguing that opponents of substance causation owe us an explanation of why this argument is unsound. I end by answering objections to the view that substances can be causes.

Keywords

substance causationcausal powersrelata of causation
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , Spring 2016 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, David M. (1996) ‘Dispositions as Categorical States’. In Crane, Tim (ed.), Dispositions: A Debate (London: Routledge), 15–18.Google Scholar
Audi, Paul. (2012) ‘A Clarification and Defence of the Notion of Grounding’. In Correia, F. and Schnieder, B. (eds.), Metaphysical Grounding (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 101–21.Google Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan. (1988) Events and their Names. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, Karen. (2011) ‘Construction Area (No Hard Hat Required)’. Philosophical Studies, 154, 79–104.Google Scholar
Bird, Alexander. (2007) Nature's Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broad, C. D. (1934) ‘Determinism, Indeterminism and Libertarianism’. In his Ethics and the History of Philosophy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952), 195–217.Google Scholar
Clarke, Randolph. (2003) Libertarian Accounts of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. (1967) ‘Causal Relations’. Journal of Philosophy, 64, 691–703.Google Scholar
Ehring, Douglas. (1997) Causation and Persistence: A Theory of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ehring, Douglas. (2003) ‘Part-Whole Physicalism and Mental Causation’. Synthese, 136, 359–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fara, Michael. (2005) ‘Dispositions and Habituals’. Noûs, 39, 43–82.Google Scholar
Hall, Ned. (2000) ‘Causation and the Price of Transitivity’. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 198–222.Google Scholar
Heil, John. (2004) ‘Properties and Powers’. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 1, 223–54.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J., and Rosenkrantz, G.. (1994) Substance among other Categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. (1976) ‘Events as Property Exemplifications’. In Brand, M. and Walton, D. (eds.), Action Theory (Dordrecht: Reidel), 159–77.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1973a) Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1973b) ‘Causation’. In Lewis's Philosophical Papers II (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 159–213.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1986) ‘Causal Explanation’. In Lewis's Philosophical Papers II (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 214–40.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. (1997) ‘Finkish Dispositions’. Philosophical Quarterly, 47, 143–58.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. (2008) Personal Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McLauglin, Brian. (1995) ‘Varieties of Supervenience’. In Savello, E. and Yalcin, O. (eds.), Supervenience: New Essays (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 16–59.Google Scholar
Menzies, Peter. (1989) ‘A Unified Account of Causal Relata’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 67, 59–83.Google Scholar
Menzies, Peter. (2009) ‘Nature's Metaphysics’. Analysis, 69, 769–78.Google Scholar
Oliver, Alex, and Smiley, Timothy. (2004) ‘Multigrade Predicates’. Mind, 113, 609–81.Google Scholar
Prior, E., Pargetter, R., and Jackson, F.. (1982) ‘Three Theses about Dispositions’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 19, 251–57.Google Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. (2009) ‘Abstract Objects’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 ed.). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/abstract-objects/.Google Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. (2010) ‘Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction’. In Hale, B. and Hoffman, A. (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic and Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 109–36.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. (1949) The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. (2003) ‘Overdetermining Causes’. Philosophical Studies, 114, 23–45.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. (2005) ‘Contrastive Causation’. Philosophical Review, 114, 327–58.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, Sydney. (1980) ‘Causality and Properties’. In van Inwagen, Peter (ed.), Time and Cause (Dordrecht: Reidel), 109–35.Google Scholar
Steward, Helen. (2012) A Metaphysics for Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar