Nāgārjuna’s And Hume’s Views On Causation

Introduction to Philosophy
Second Short Assignment

Nāgārjuna’s and Hume’s views on Causation

* Nagarjuna’s Argument
Nagarjuna’s conclusion is that causation does not exist and is merely a useful fiction. In order to support this claim, he lists the four possible arguments regarding causation that an opponent could consider:
1) An effect is caused by itself.
2) An effect iscaused by something else.
3) An effect is caused both by itself and by something else.
4) An effect is caused by nothing.
Nagarjuna refutes (1) by saying that if an effect were produced by itself, the whole idea of production would be nonsensical. Indeed, given that (1) were true, the intrinsic nature of the effect would be already present in its cause. Therefore, since cause and effectwould share the same “nature,” it would be unnecessary for the arising to take place. For instance, if heat were already present in the causes of fire, what would be the necessity of creating fire altogether? Consequently, it can be concluded that the intrinsic nature of the effect is not present in its causes.
In order to refute (2), Nagarjuna uses the conclusion in his argument against (1) toshow that the explanation to why a determined cause produces a certain effect is not satisfactory. He begins by stating that the natures of cause and effect must be distinct since the nature of the effect is not present in the cause. In other words, a particular effect must be produced by a cause with a different nature. For instance, when water freezes it (liquid) produces ice (solid). However,Nagarjuna questions, if cause and effect are distinct in nature, what makes a cause produce a particular effect and not another? Going back to the example, why does water (liquid) produce ice (solid) and not lead (solid)? An opponent trying to prove (2) could argue that only certain actions produce certain effects, but then why is it not possible to produce ice (solid) by freezing mercury (liquid).And, the claim that the intrinsic nature of ice is already present in the water necessarily falls into the same pitfall as argument (1).
Approaching the problem from a different angle, the opponent might try polishing his argument by claiming that the arising takes places by means of actions that act as intermediaries between the cause and the effect. These actions would have the causal powerthat allows the right kinds of causes produce the right kinds of effects, thus, explaining why freezing water produces ice and not lead. However, this argument is not sound because it does not provide any clues regarding the nature of these actions’ origins. In other words, why do those specific actions derive from a particular cause? Why does an ice-producing actions derive from freezing waterand not a lead-producing action? The most probable reply to this question is that there is a second action which acts as an intermediate between the cause and the first action; nonetheless, this claim leads to an infinite regress, where one action leads to another action, and to another action, etc.
Subsequently, Nagarjuna draws out another problem for the advocates of the view that effects areproduced by distinct causes. He points out that if, indeed, the cause produces the effect, it can only do so at the following moments:
a) After the effect has already come into existence.
b) Before the effect has come into existence.
c) At some third time.
The first option to be rejected is (a) because once the effect has arisen, the production has already taken place. And, (b) isillogical because if the effect had arisen before it had been produced, then it would have existed before its creation. Finally, (c) is rejected because, Nagarjuna argues, there is no intermediate time between the time before the effect exists and the time when it does exist. Existence is a property that is either possessed or not possessed. Therefore, the sole idea that the effect is partially...