Agent Causes

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 17, 2004, 6:52 am

Avicenna wrote:By the agent we have in mind the cause which bestows existence separate from itself, that is, its essence is not, according to the first intention, an underlying subject for that which receives from it the existence of something which is formed by it, so that it is in itself the potentiality of its existence (that is, the existence which it bestows) only accidentally. And with that it is necessary that this existence is not from its disposition insofar as it is an agent (in the sense of a principle of motion), but if is, it must be according to some other relation. The reason is that the metaphysicians do not intend by the agent the principle of movement only, as do the natural philosophers, but also the principle of existence and that which bestows existence, such as the creator of the world.

Can anyone explain what the fuck this means before I have to write an essay on it? Seriously now.

Morgrym · Post by **Morgrym** » November 17, 2004, 9:43 am

Something that just is with no real reason why.

Then again, it's early and pre coffee....ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Neost · Post by **Neost** » November 17, 2004, 10:13 am

Trias · Post by **Trias** » November 17, 2004, 11:07 am

that's about creation in reguards to metaphysics...universal creation that is.

the agent referred to is an efficient of causality in discussion of creation...this particular Avicenna quote is only a partial quote in which is further discussed the inherrent differences between how metaphysicians and natural philosophers dicuss agent(efficient) cause

and an Al-shifa quote that can detail it

"the metaphysicians do not intend by the agent the principle of movement only, as do the natural philosophers, but also the principle of existence and that which bestows existence, such as the creator of the world"

Hawking also touches a lot on this subject

Trias · Post by **Trias** » November 17, 2004, 11:19 am

read some

Hawking, A Brief History of Time
Avicenna, Canons of Medicine
Morewedge, Philosophies of Existence: Ancient and Medieval

edit* and google for some web infos

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 17, 2004, 11:39 am

Metaphysics is the only class I failed in college.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 17, 2004, 11:54 am

It means the inventor of the comma should be shot

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 17, 2004, 12:50 pm

Chidoro wrote:It means the inventor of the comma should be shot

He was just reaching his full potentiality.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 17, 2004, 1:08 pm

Plato wrote:He first marked off a section of the whole, and then another twice the size of the first; next a third, half as much again as the second and three times the first, a fourth twice the size of the second, a fifth three times the third, a sixth eight times the first, a seventh twenty-seven times the first. Next, he filled in the double and treble intervals by cutting off further sections and exceeding one extreme and being exceeded by the other by the same fraction of the extremes, the other exceeding and being exceeded by the same numerical amount. These links produced intervals of 3/2 and 4/3 and 9/8 within the previous intervals, and he went on to fill all intervals of 4/3 with the inverval 9/8; this left, as a remainder in each, an interval whose terms bore the numerical ratio of 256 to 243. And at that stage the mixture from which these sections were being cut was all used up.

This is apparently how the human soul was created.

Trias: So what is the differentiation between an 'agent cause' and a 'purpose cause?' Avicenna says

Avicenna wrote:Now, if it is that for the sake of which the thing exists, then it is the purpose; and if it is not that for the sake of which the thing exists, then the existence of the thing must proceed from it in such a way that it exists in it only accidentally, and this is the agent.

So an agent cause is a causal factor that provides existence to it's effect accidentally, and not for the sake for which that thing exists? He also discusses 'real' agent causes, saying that they must exist concurrently with their effects; thus a father is not the real agent cause of the son because they do not exist simultaneously. What is the relevance? What would be a 'real agent cause?'

Trias · Post by **Trias** » November 17, 2004, 1:54 pm

i'm confused, are you doing something for a class where you are trying to prove the existance of god and universal creation through metaphysics or something?

cause your plato quote goes down a different route than the former post

causation is retarded because you can refute most parts of it one way or another haha

what exactly is your assignment, cause this is a really broad topic?

So an agent cause is a causal factor that provides existence to it's effect accidentally, and not for the sake for which that thing exists?

and that is just the hypothesis of two conflicting opinions of plato and avicenna...there are no 100% definitions of "real agent" in causation

philosophers and metaphysicians have come up with a whole slew/variety of proposed types of agents and variations of causation

must poke brain with q-tip

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » November 17, 2004, 2:17 pm

Its either igneous or sedimentary .. no wait .. metamorphic ... fuck .. you are on your own.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 17, 2004, 5:21 pm

It's not a metaphysics class, it's a medieval philosophy class. We're not actually studying Avicenna in depth, we're just reading him along with a slew of other philosophers from the time period. I was just doing the reading (the sixth treatise of the healing) and I was trying to figure out what the fuck he's talking about. My professor is a very old man who recently had a stroke and can get out maybe 15 sentences in your average class. He hasn't shaved or got a haircut in awhile, he has worn the same shirt every day, and he's usually 10 minutes late for class. He's very knowledgeable but he's just not able to communicate it anymore, and so it's pretty much impossible to learn anything about the subject from him. The only other resource we have is our readings, which consist of primary sources only, and so all I have to work with is mountains of pages of text exactly like I quoted above and attempting to decipher it all with no context whatsoever is so difficult it's absurd.

The Plato quote didn't have anything to do with the Avicenna quote. That was just another particularly bizarre paragraph.