Resumen

MOTA PINTO, Silvio. Hume Versus Aristotle, Locke and Leibniz on Causality. Tópicos (México) [online]. 2020, n.59, pp.367-396.  Epub 20-Nov-2020. ISSN 0188-6649.  https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i59.1099.

Aristotle’s conception of causality and the ones Modern philosophers have bequeathed us (Locke, Leibniz and Hume in particular) have been exhaustively discussed, although the contrast between them has not, in my opinion, been sufficient- ly highlighted. This paper proposes to fill this gap. I start with Aristotelian causality and his theses that causal explanation re- quires knowledge of causal laws and that the necessity associ- ated with these laws presupposes the existence of causal pow- ers. I discuss next Locke’s and Leibniz’s attempts to modernize Aristotle’s theses on causality. The third part of the paper pres- ents two paradoxes Hume identified, on the one hand, between Locke’s and Leibniz’s theses about our knowledge of causal laws and, on the other hand, between the Aristotelian thesis that there must be causal powers and the scientific practice of Modernity. Hume’s proposal to eliminate these paradoxes is also discussed. I finish with some critical remarks on the humean model about our knowledge of causal laws as compared with his contribution to the analysis of the concept of causality.

Palabras llave : causality; explanation; Aristotle; Locke; Leibniz; Hume.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )