| Abstract: | 懷德海晚期哲學因果論之研究因果概念向居西方哲學的核心地位，它不僅有極其重要的認識論上的意義---科學知識建立在因果解釋的基礎上，且有更為根本的本體論和形上學的意義---宇宙萬物遵循齊一律則。同時基於這認識論與形上學的意義，因果概念也與神學、倫理學和其他實踐知識密切相關。這些課題可簡要含括在以下的問題裡：（1）什麼是因果？因果是否存在？（2）如果因果存在，因果之間是否有必然性？（3）因果之間如有必然性，是否即有決定性？而這決定性是否與自由不相容？（4）又即使否定因果的決定性，肯定因果機率性的非決定論，是否足以保障自由？（5）物理因果和心理因果是否同屬機械因果法則？因果的機械論與目的論是否相容？心與物是否能交感？前述議題正是懷德海晚期哲學主要的關懷。本計畫擬探討懷德海如何運用形上學與認識論的策略，發展其因果論。在形上學方面，懷德海提出一系列宇宙論、本體論與神學理論，企圖協調西方自十七世紀起即有機械論與目的論對立的問題，將「動力因果」與「目的因果」結合在同一形上原理之下。二是認識論方面，懷德海提出「因果效應論」作為知覺經驗最原初的型態的解釋理論，一面肯定一切實有均有直接因果知覺，另一面為有感宇宙奠下認識論的基礎。如此懷德海在晚期哲學著作中，交互運用形上學與認識論的策略，深化因果概念的含意。這是否足以使之取得倫理學和價值哲學上的意義？將是本計畫探討的第三個課題。
Causality inWhitehead’s Later Philosophy The notion of causality has long been at the core of the development of Western philosophy; as it not only assumes a prominent position in epistemology, but also in metaphysics, ethics, jurisprudence, and so on. As it is generally recognized that to know the cause of a thing is essential to having knowledge of it, and the foundation of modern science has just been laid upon the methodology of causal inference and causal explanations, the significance of causality in epistemology is evident.Whereas metaphysics used to be a science of the First Causes, and the notion of causality asserts a necessary bond between cause and effect that demonstrates the existence of the principle of natural uniformity, it is of course important to metaphysics in general, and to ontology, cosmology and theology in particular. Moreover, the concept of causality has been closely associated with that of necessity and thereby become threatening to human liberty. Once everything in the universe is causally determined, little room would be left for purposes, freedom, possibilities, voluntary actions, self-consciousness, moral responsibility, and so forth. Thus the idea of causality is also indispensible to ethical issues. The conflicts between teleology and mechanism, determinism and indeterminism, man and nature can be best understood through the opposition of the efficient cause to the final cause.What is the true meaning of the term causality? Whether mental causation should be ascribed to the same law of physical causation? Can the efficient causations prevailing in the physical world be compatible with the final causations evident in the mental world? Do we have direct perception of causality? From whence does our idea of causality arise? All these questions have been pondered byA. N.Whitehead at the later stage of his philosophical development. By employing some metaphysical strategies, Whitehead proposed in his philosophy of organism the doctrines of actual entities, ontological principles, creativity, prehensions, eternal objects, process cosmology, and God. All this is his attempt to give the concept of causality a broader scene that can bring the efficient causations and the final causations together. Besides that,Whitehead also employs an epistemological strategy to expound the doctrine of causal efficacy as the one of the major themes of his later philosophy. By challenging both the Humean answer of empirical skepticism and the Kantian answer of transcendental idealism with respect to the origin and the nature of our idea of causation,Whitehead suggests “causal efficacy”to be the primal mode of perception and a direct perception of causation. AsWhitehead puts it, both Hume and Kant “find ‘casual efficacy’to be the importation, into the data, of a way of thinking or judging about those data. One school calls it a habit of thought; while the other school calls it a category of thought.”So both schools reject our notion of any direct perception of causal efficacy in the sense in which direct perception is antecedent to our thought about it.Whitehead argues that causal efficacy as vague percepts, not to be controlled, heavy with emotion, is in fact more primordial and fundamental in our experiences. By these two strategies complementing each other,Whitehead seems to open a new vista for us to resolve the issues entangled with causality. The proposal aims to make an in depth study with regard toWhitehead’s contention of reconciliation of teleology and mechanism in terms of uniting the efficient causation and final causation under the same metaphysical principle ---the Ontological Principle, and of giving an account of the primordial mode of perception with the doctrine of causal efficacy. |
