Notes and questions on causality

-Can we call causality a kind of unity which consists in imparting something to another? There is a real unity among causes and effects, which follows upon their being acts and potencies, respectively (without potency, the idea of cause is lost). 

Causality requires both unity and diversity. Causality is union (lack of division) to another which also requires real division from the other along the lines of cause and effect. Is there a paradox in causality like the paradox in the interior common sensitive power?   

-A cause is a kind of order, and it consists in being “prior” or “before”. Taken in this way, however, we might reduce causality to mere division or distinction, which will end up putting us at risk of forgeting the unity that causality involves- sc. the unity of cause and effect.

-The cause informs, and is the form informing. Better yet, the “form informing” or “informing thing has two senses. To be in as an agent is not to be in as a form. The force in the ball is in one sense the force in the ball being thrown, in another sense not. The two forces are essentially different- for the force in the hand is a living thing, that in the ball is not.

Is “force” a category that conceals more than it reveals? Is it essentially metrical in such a way as when I speak of the force in my hand and the force in the ball I am speaking of essentially different realities?

Post a Comment