Understanding causation

In Part I of 'Causality and Determination (CD), Anscombe writes that (1) we understand causality through understanding specific causal expressions, (2) efficient causation can be perceived, (3) causality consists in the derivativeness of an effect from its causes, and 4) no analysis in terms of necessity or universality has a place for this. Theses (1) and (2) represent fundamental and important insights. (3) is unsatisfactory; for, taken in a sense that does not already build on the general notion of causation, deriving from does little to elucidate this notion. CD is however right to urge the need to identify a core, the common feature, of causality in its various kinds-a kind of criterion, such as the one suggested by Makin (2000), that takes account of (4) in that it is more substantial than, but does not entail, necessity or universality. What CD seems to underestimate is the important role of regularities, possibly neither necessary nor exceptionless, for our understanding of the causal relation. Finally, such understanding also requires us, not only to rely on a common criterion of causation, but also on a subjective component of this idea: the consciousness of our own causal agency. Anscombe's own investigations into non-observational practical knowledge open the door to the study of this aspect of causality.

Automated summary

The text discusses Anscombe's views on causality, emphasizing the importance of understanding specific causal expressions. It suggests that causality consists in the derivative nature of effects from their causes, but there is debate over how to interpret this concept. It also highlights the necessity of identifying a core feature of causality, as well as the significance of individual subjective consciousness of causal agency in understanding causality.