The Metaphysics of Causation and a Reflection on Interactionist Dualism

Causation can be regarded as one of the most important and fundamental notions in the history of philosophy. It is arguable if we consider causation is bounded with Hume. His Empiricism led him to be skeptical about modal notions. Hence, he sought to eliminate them from his ontology. His efforts paid back. By his challenge on the classical view on causation, the image of the causal relation as necessary relation was pushed aside. At present, the majority of analytic philosophers have accepted this Humean understanding of the world known as the Humean mosaic. Despite these facts, there is a minority who still defend the classical or, more accurately, the Aristotelian account of causation. In this essay, first, I try to introduce the basics of the Humean view based on Heil and Martin’s view. Then, I am going to explain the Aristotelian view with a focus on Charles Martin and John Heil’s view. Besides introducing Heil and Martin’s views on causation, this article attempts to demonstrate an Aristotelian view of the world is preferable to the Humean one, this would be possible by appealing to evaluate the distinction between categorical properties and dispositional properties. In the end, I investigate that if we find the Aristotelian view more plausible, and if we want to pick up Interactionist Substance Dualism in the philosophy of mind, the best option for us is Lowe’s Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism.