Philosophy: Metaphysics
Causality is the influence by which one event, contributes to the development of another event. The first event may be the sole cause of the second event or just a factor that contributes to the occurrence of the second event. This essay will focus on causation based on the theories of two philosophers, Hume and Plato.
Hume is a philosopher known for applying empirical standards rigorously to the theory of causation. He challenges us to consider what experience allows us to know about cause and effect. In his argument, Hume argues that of two events, A and B, we say A causes B when the two are always together and constantly conjoined. It means that whenever we find A, we will find B, and the conjunction continues to happen. According to Hume, causation is a relation between objects that we employ in our reasoning to yield less demonstrative knowledge of the world beyond our immediate impressions.
In Shakespeare’s story of Romeo and Juliet, the two families reconciled after the tragic death of the two love birds. Hume would interpret the reconciliation as a result of the deaths. According to his theory of causation, one event leads to the other, whereby, in this case, the death of Romeo and Juliet led to the end of quarreling between the two families. There was no point for the two families to keep fighting when the union they were against was brought to an end by death.
On the other hand, Plato uses the theory of form to explain the aspect of causality when he presents it as something that cannot be refuted. He sees causes as things and not events and describes all causations as a matter of like causing like. Plato also uses empirical logic to explain the theory of causation. In his principle of causality, He states that “everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause, for nothing can come to be without a cause.”
In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet story, Plato would interpret the reconciliation of the two families as something that is there because the author intended for it to be there. Therefore, it is something that cannot be refuted. Thus, the causes were within the plot of the play as the author planned it to be. Unlike Hume’s interpretation, Plato has given a particular effect, and there must be some factors that brought about the impact. But he did not infer anywhere that given certain conditions, some effect necessarily follows. Therefore, even though the two families in the play stopped quarreling, it does not necessarily mean that they stopped fighting because of the death of Romeo and Juliet.
In my view, Hume has a better position in interpreting the Romeo and Juliet story. Hume explains one event being the cause of the other, which makes more sense since the two families would have continued fighting, with literally nothing to fight. Plato’s theory, on the other hand, does not hold water in interpreting Shakespeare’s story. In his theory of causality, Plato does not give many details or background information. Instead, he assumes that the audience is in agreement and understands his argument.