Kant on Causation: On the Fivefold Routes to the Principle of Causation

Chapter Four: The Irreversibility Argument

Chapter Four The Irreversibility Argument With a general evaluation of four of the five routes to the principle of causation behind us we must now turn our attention to the completion of this task. Remember that each of the argument strategies is in a sense incomplete. The main thing missing is an interpretation of the argument Kant is supposed to use in order to justify the first premise of the argument strategy. There is general agreement that this argument is supposed to be found in what I will call the Irreversibility Argument. The heart of the argument can be found in the following passage: I see, for example, a ship floating down the river. My perception of its position downstream follows the perception of its position higher up in the course of the river, and it is impossible that in the apprehension of this appearance the ship should first be perceived downstream and afterwards higher up in the river. The order in the succession of perceptions in the apprehension is thus here determined, and to this order apprehension is bound down. In the previous example of a house, my perceptions in the apprehension could begin at the top and end at the ground but could also begin below and end above; similarly I could apprehend the manifold of empirical intuition from the right or from the left. In the series of these perceptions there was thus no determinate order which made it necessary where in the apprehension I would have to begin in order to connect the manifold empirically. (A192–93/B237–38) Some have thought, for various reasons, that the Irreversibility Argument provides Kant with a sound basis in his argument for the causal principle. 75 76 KANT ON CAUSATION Others have thought, for various reasons, that the Irreversibility Argument is, as it stands, unsound. Some of these, however, have suggested ways in which it can be successfully modified. Some others have thought, for various reasons, that the Irreversibility Argument as it stands is invalid. Some of these, however, believe it can be successfully modified so that it is valid. Still others have thought, for various reasons, that the Irreversibility Argument is as it stands simply laughable. These positions above are basically the ones I will examine in the first part of this chapter. For each view I examine I will be concerned with two things: First, I will examine a commentator’s exposition of the Irreversibility Argument. Second, I will examine his discussion of the suitability of the Irreversibility Argument as an argument for the first premise of Kant’s argument for the causal principle. In the last part of the chapter I will finally turn to an exposition and defense of the Irreversibility Argument itself and I will there deal with a few loose objections that could not be dealt with earlier. LOVEJOY’S POSITION: SCSE, THE VERIDICAL STRATEGY1 Lovejoy argues that Kant brings the irreversibility argument into his attempted proof of the causal principle in order to solve a particular problem—namely, the problem of how it is “that we can distinguish—and, indeed, can conceive of—a moving or changing object, in contrast with the stationary or unchanging .”2 Lovejoy notes, however, that there is a serious objection to this “supposed ” problem. Lovejoy’s objection is that this problem “is a problem which exists only for Kant’s imagination.”3 That is, there is no problem. In actual cases of perception, “so long as our attention to a given object be continuous, objects are directly given as moving or stationary, as altering or retaining their original sensible qualities.”4 Setting aside his objection (as being the least of Kant’s problems) Lovejoy argues that Kant goes on to solve this problem in the Irreversibility Argument by showing that when we observe an event the sequence of our perceptions is irreversible. That is, an event must “be observed by us, if it is observed at all, in one single order, which is independent of the action of our will, of any shifting of our attention.”5 When we observe ordinary physical 1. At the heading for each commentator I discuss I list which formulation of the causal principle he attributes to Kant (see chapter 2 above) as well as which general argument strategy for the causal principle he attributes to Kant (see chapter 3 above). 2. Lovejoy, 296. 3. Ibid., 297. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid., 299. [18.191.239.123] Project MUSE (2024-04...