Abstract
I claim that ‘cause and effect’ only appears to involve distinct existences insofar as we can’t
adequately understand the relationship, or insofar as we are determined to look at the matters
of fact involved from a logically deductive point of view. Since ‘cause and effect’ often represents
the first stab at understanding what happens in a situation, this means it will often appear to
involve distinct existences, and since logical deduction is the acme of what it is to perform
adequate reasoning, for philosophers, this re-enforces this appearance, to philosophers. In
contrast I claim we can try to avoid drawing conclusions beyond objects or factors in a situation,
by comparing them as we attempt to trace them about. In so far as we succeed, since we have
not had to go beyond the continued existence of those factors, they themselves must appear
sufficient to produce that part of the situations they continue into and so construct. I also claim
if somethings appear themselves sufficient to bring something about this is inconsistent with the
claim it depends on something else e.g. human understanding, or language.
Two cases;
1) If we assume this object has, or continues to have some properties e.g. weight, then on
this basis we can validly deduce such & such consequences.
2) The continued existence of this object with weight would (or is) itself be sufficient to bring
about….
The first makes what we are up to depend on our mode of reasoning, or what we recognize
as ‘our way and principles of reasoning’. The second discovers the situation to be
autonomous.