The truth is, that every thing (cause)has an effect on someting.
mando
On Mar 25, 2009, at 8:54 AM, [email protected] wrote:
I wrote, "Static objects almost never conform to our notion of a
'cause'."
You replied -- "What object in this universe is static?" -- which
strikes me
as a response that is either befuddled or insincere. Can you
honestly claim
you've never used the word 'static' as an adjective to convey that
something
is
at rest, motionless?
Would you ever take a lexicographer to his adjectival entry for
'static' and
tell him all this should be deleted because no object is ever static?
You evidently didn't grasp the thought behind the phrase, "conform
to our
notion of" (a cause). I deliberately avoided using 'is' or 'are'
about causes,
because I could make my point better without those words. I was
trying to
describe why our thinking will be clearer if we save the word
'cause' for
events,
not objects. In particular is it bootless to say any object that is
at rest
should be considered a "cause".
I submit this as good reason to believe you were missing the point
altogether: In one breath you cite the bullet as the "efficient
cause" of
death. In your
next breath you call the bullet an "act": "Or as it's called in the
law, the
proximate cause, 'an ACT from which an injury resultsb&'" I claim
few decent
lawyers -- nor you -- would ever point at a bullet lying at rest on
the table
and say, "That object is an act."
To rephrase what I tried to convey with my last posting: Attack the
argument,
not the man, Michael, and you'll find the man less inclined to
climb onto his
high horse and charge at you like this.
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make meals for Under
$10. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000002)
